Finck Philosophies

My New School

2011-11-03T13:37:00.000-05:00

I know I need to improve my blogging, it’s been way to long since I made my last post. When I first began this blog, I posted on a regular basis and I need to get back to writing. I have been told by very wise men that the greatest way to improve your writing skills is to write something every day. Until I began blogging I never knew what to write, but with a blog I have a place. Many exciting things have happened in the past few months. We have moved to Oklahoma and have began teaching at my new position. I could not be happier at my new school. I have been asked about my school, so I thought I could fill everyone in. there are only two history professors so I have all the flexibility I could want. The other professor's field is Greece and Rome, so I get to teach all the American classes while he teaches everything else. I do teach the Modern Middle East, while he teaches ancient. I love the freedom I have here. Any American class I can think of I can teach it. I do have to teach one of the sequence classes each semester, which here are broken into four parts. There is a Colonial America class that goes to 1789; then a class from 1789 to 1877; one from 1877 to 1945, then finally a modern American class.

The other class that I teach every semester is part of our IDS curriculum, which is what sets our university apart from most. All of our core classes are IDS or interdisciplinary studies. What is meant by IDS is that all our core or IDS classes are team taught by professors in different disciplines. The classes I teach are American Civ I and II. This semester I am teaching Civ I with an economics professor but next semester it might be an English professor, then maybe a philosophy, music, art, or poly sci professor. It is an awesome approach to teaching and learning from a truly liberal arts approach to allow students to learn subjects from different interpretations. I love teaching with the professor I am teaching with now, economic history is one of my weaknesses and I have actually learned a lot teaching with her. I think our students really enjoy they way we teach together, it is very informal like we are having a conversation between them and ourselves.

So every semester I teach either Civ I or II and one of the history sequences and then I can choose any other class I want to teach after that. I love that I will have a variety and not just the same classes. I love the Civil War but even that can get old after a while. Next semester I am teaching Civ II, American History 1877 to 1945, The history of Presidents and Political Parties, and a reading seminar on early America history. I am excited about this class. We are going to read some of the most important historians each week and come together and talk about them. I have wanted to teach this class for some time. One reason is that there are some books I wanted to read for some time, that I have not found the time, now I will have to read them.

Lastly, I really am enjoying my school, because of the people. I am at a small school, with about 1,100 students, so we have around 30 faculty. Because of the size, we are close. In Texas I only knew a few people outside the history department, here I work with everyone. I do not know everyone well yet, but there are several I have become friends with.

This is enough for now, but I will be better at posting. I have more to say including the publication of two books due out this spring, so I will give information about these soon.

A Few Comments About bin Laden Death and Obama's Speech

2011-05-02T09:57:00.000-05:00

I want to join with the rest of the nation as we celebrate the defeat of one of the most evil men of the past century. He stands there with Hitler, Stalin and Mao. The only difference between Bin Laden and these others was he did not have the ability to carry out death on the level as a Hitler, but his intent was just as horrific. It has been a long fight, and has hurt this nation as it tore it apart along ideological seems. This morning the nation seems united once more, in a similar if smaller version, of what we saw in the years after 9/11. I wish I was hopeful that this could start to be an end in our war against terror, but I am not. There is still a radical element within Islam that will not rest. I am encouraged by what I am seeing in the middle east, but I will write on that in a different post, but our war on terror will not end with the death of Bin Laden, others will set up to replace him.

As excited as I was last night as I watched the news, I was equally disappointed when I watched President Obama give his address. I was not surprised, I have ceased being surprised, I fact I expected it. Obama, as expected, used Bin Laden’s death for political gain. I was hoping for a short statement, but instead he took credit. He also used the occasion to rewrite a bit of his own history:

“We were also united in our resolve to protect our nation and to bring those who committed this vicious attack to justice. We quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda — an organization headed by Osama bin Laden, which had openly declared war on the United States and was committed to killing innocents in our country and around the globe. And so we went to war against al Qaeda to protect our citizens, our friends, and our allies.”

Obama knew how exited we would be and he wanted to celebrate with us, be one of us. He is correct that we united as a nation and were committed. Almost every Congressman and Senator voted to support President Bush and voted for a declaration of War. Almost every Senator, one of the very few who did not was Obama. He was not part of us then, in fact he was against it. He made his campaign that we were wrong and promised to end the war if elected.

The President continued, “Over the last 10 years, thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals, we’ve made great strides in that effort.” Here he seems to be giving a nod to President Bush but in the next paragraph said,

“Yet Osama bin Laden avoided capture and escaped across the Afghan border into Pakistan. Meanwhile, al Qaeda continued to operate from along that border and operate through its affiliates across the world. And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.”

In other words, I did what Bush could not. I made Bin Laden a priority and so now we got him. I guess I feel for Bush, he fought an unpopular war to get bin Laden, yet Obama takes all the credit and gets American support, all the while retaining liberal support by saying this is a war we should have never fought. Throughout the speech Obama used rhetoric straight out of Bush’s speeches, the same rhetoric he condemned Bush for as grandstanding, he is now using.

Lastly I was put off by his arrogance. He needed to tone down the use of “I”. The whole speech was I did this and I did that. Here a few examples

“I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority”

“I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden”

“I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation”

“Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation”

“Over the years, I’ve repeatedly made clear that we would take action within Pakistan if we knew where bin Laden was.”

“These efforts weigh on me every time I, as Commander-in-Chief, have to sign a letter to a family that has lost a loved one, or look into the eyes of a service member who’s been gravely wounded.”

I was getting prepared for him to say that he personally after making all the plans actually flew over there and led the mission and that he personally pulled the trigger for the kill shot.

Just to be open, I am not a fan of the president. If you read old posts you will see I tried, I hoped he would be the man he wanted us to believe. So maybe I am just jaded, but in a moment of triumph I was disappointed that the President took the time to make a campaign speech

Book Review-Team of Rivals

2011-04-08T14:53:00.000-05:00

During my blogging hiatus I was fortunate to read a few really great books that I thought I would catch up writing a review on. I decided to read Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin. Goodwin is a popular writer, but I have never read any of her books before, but because this one was on Abraham Lincoln I thought I would give it a try. I was pleased that I did. I found her analysis of Lincoln fascinating. I have read many books on Lincoln, but where this one made its mark was looking at how he dealt with other people. I came away from this book with a new appreciation of the man, and in fact I found that this book made me want to be a better person. Goodwin brilliantly documents how Lincoln had a knack of making enemies into friends. Instead of just getting angry at every slight towards him, and there were many; he found a way to get those making the slights to eventually support them. Bridges that most people would have burned down were not by Lincoln; so later in life he was able to cross them again for his own benefit.

I will give one example. Lincoln early on had difficulty getting along with his Secretary of War Cameron. Several times Cameron threatened to quite if he did not get his way, knowing Lincoln would never accept. Or so he thought. During one disagreement Lincoln accepted his offer by writing him a letter saying he had accepted and planned on nominating Cameron as ambassador to Russia. Cameron was crushed by the news and considered himself fired and worried what the public humiliation would do. Cameron had treated the President very badly while in office including publicly insulting him. Now that Lincoln had a chance for revenge, he did not take it. In letters to the press Lincoln set himself up for disgrace, taking all the blame on himself. He even brought Cameron in and asked his advice on his replacement. Cameron suggested Edwin Stanton, who Lincoln had already decided on, but let Cameron leave thinking Stanton was his idea. Cameron was a man who detested Lincoln, who was fired by Lincoln, yet as Goodwin writes, “Cameron would never forget this generous act. Filled with gratitude and admiration, he would become . . . one of the most intimate and devoted of Lincoln’s personal friends. He appreciated the courage it took for Lincoln to share the blame at a time when everyone else had deserted him. Most other men in Lincoln’s situation, Cameron wrote, “would have permitted an innocent man to suffer rather than incur responsibility.” Lincoln was not like most other men, as each cabinet member, including the new war secretary, would soon come to understand.” (Goodwin, 413)

This is just one example of the kind of man Lincoln was. He allowed himself to look foolish when it came to dealing with his leading General, George B. McClellan. As long as little Mac was the best man for the job, he would keep his job. It was not the constant insults that got Mac fired, it was his ineptitude on the battlefield. Lincoln was not a perfect man. In my own book and recent article I wrote about the Kentucky governor’s election in 1863, Lincoln restricted civil liberties to the point of being unconstitutional. It is hard to judge him, he was trying to save the nation. Goodwin bring to life this extraordinary president with her ability to tell a great story. The book is 755 pages, but reads easy and her writing style makes it easy to finish. In the end it was one of the more enjoyable book I have read. As I said it made me look at my own life and my dealings with people. If I could try to be more like Lincoln, life would be just that much easier.

One exciting note is that I believe they are making the book into a movie, possibly staring Daniel Day Lewis. We are due for a good Lincoln book, but no matter how good it is you still need to read the book. There is no way any movie can cover all the information.

I'm Back

2011-04-04T18:50:00.002-05:00

Not that anyone but me cares, but I am back writing my blog. It has been much longer then I planned before starting again and I miss it. I have found blogging to be therapeutic, I feel like my brain is always on, never allowing any rest. What I have found is that if I write down what I am thinking I can move on. For anyone interested, let me explain why the long break. I graduated in 2008 and since then I have been on the job market. I have been a lecturer at my current University for the past five years. It has been an excellent opportunity to experience an entirely new culture in South Texas, but being a lecturer is only about one step up from slave labor at my University. While I have been on the hunt for a tenure tract position, I decided to stop blogging. It is unfortunate, but true that many in academia would not hire a new professor with conservative views. The bleeding heart liberal community of scholars who claim to be so open to everyone else’s views did not mean conservative views. I felt it was best to not advertise my political views.

Now, however, everything has changed. This week I was hired as an assistant Professor at a liberal arts University in Oklahoma. My family and I are very excited about the move. It is a small town but I like small towns and we are only half an hour from the city which is perfect. What I am most excited about is how much they seem to love me. I had to give a sample lecture to a group of faculty and students while I visited the University on my interview. When I met with the VP of academic affairs afterwards he told me I gave one the best lectures he had ever seen. About an hour after I got home the next day I received a call offering me the position. I was surprised how fast it came, but I was told they were so impressed and it was a unanimous decision of the committee that they did not want to wait. I am not sure exactly when we are going to move, but I am excited about the next phase in my family’s life. Our journey has taken us from Virginia to Arkansas to Texas and now we will begin our next chapter in Oklahoma.

2011-04-03T19:02:00.000-05:00

I have had some requests to share my thanksgiving cooking experience. My family did something that I have wanted to do for many years, cook a full thanksgiving meal outside over the fire. Being in South Texas it is finally cool enough to be able to camp and with the kids having a few days break we decided to go camping. We drove five hours up to a state park

called Enchanted Rock, named after the large rock formations. It was a great place to camp and the kids had a lot of fun, but the important part was the meal. We did not want to skimp on anything, so we planned the full thanksgiving spread. The turkey was excellent; because of limitations we did not do a full bird. Our friends who came with us marinated the turkey breasts in basically 7up and soy sauce and slow cooked it over coals. The flavor and moisture were excellent with a smokey flavor. They also made the sweet potatoes by boiling them and making them into a puree. Melissa made her grandmothers mouthwatering stuffing and we cooked it using a Dutch oven. We made mashed potatoes on the camp stove, cranberry sauce, and roasted corn on the cob over the fire. For dessert we made a peach cobbler in the Dutch oven. The dinner was perfect, I do not think we could have done a better job at home in our kitchen. It was one of the best thanksgivings I have ever had. The work was not too difficult and in fact it seemed less stressful than normal and the clean up much easier. We even had leftovers for thanksgiving sandwiches the next day. Add our dinner to the whole camping experience and it was a trip that I believe we will try again soon.

Welcome Home Lt. Ellis

2009-10-29T14:05:00.002-05:00

I just want to take a few moments to welcome home my cousin Jason who just finished a six month tour in Afghanistan. I am very glad he came home safe and am excited for his family who missed him greatly while he was gone. His wife writes a blog and has pictures of him surprising his kids at their school you can read it here. I have written about my cousins before, but I am very proud of them, both Jason and his little brother Cameron who is currently serving in Iraq. We pray for you both and I am glad to know you are doing so well. I do not get to see Jason very much anymore, but there was a time in our lives when we were very close. I still think of him often and cannot wait until we can hang out in the future. Thank you Jason for all you do.

Book Review-Alexander Hamilton

2009-10-23T10:04:00.001-05:00

Alexander Hamilton, by Ron Chernow

After finishing Chernow’s brilliantly written book about Alexander Hamilton I want to endorse it to anyone who enjoys history or who wants to learn more about the founding of our nation. This book is so much more than a biography of Hamilton, but a biography of the early years of our nation. I have written before that I believe that Hamilton is the most important of our founding fathers when it comes to our government structure. John Adams was the brains of the Revolution, Jefferson the pen, and Washington the sword and father, but if we move past the Revolution and want to understand the forming of the nation then Hamilton is the man. The book describes Hamilton as “an illegitimate, largely self-taught orphan from the Caribbean, Hamilton rose with stunning speed to become George Washington’s aide-de-camp, a battlefield hero, a member of the Constitutional Convention, the leading author of the Federalists Papers, and head of the Federalists party. As the first treasury secretary, he forged America’s tax and budget systems, Customs Service, Coast Guard, and central bank.”

With a man so important, why do we not know more about him? Why do we not heard candidates or political parties claim the legacy of Hamilton the way they do Jefferson? There are two answers, one that his party lost and when it did their legacy was removed, even though in reality it was Hamilton philosophies that that govern our nation today. Secondly, we do not like what he had to say, even though he was right in most cases.

America’s first two presidents were federalists (though Washington would never refer to himself as such). With the election of Jefferson in 1800 the Republicans would come to dominate the White House by controlling it for the next 28 years during which the Federalist party would die away. With the Republican triumph and the Federalists demise, Federalists legacies would disappear over the next 30 years as leading Republicans would exaggerate their importance while diminishing the importance of Federalists. Of the three leading Federalists Adams and Hamilton will be largely forgotten, while Washington was too important to ignore and his own legends will grow. I am even convinced that most Americans today think Jefferson was the second president. We talk so much today about Washington and Jefferson and everyone forgets Adams was in the middle and as for Hamilton he was not ever a president and is ignored.

The larger issue that no party will ever claim Hamilton as their predecessor was his philosophy of government. Hamilton’s problem was that his beliefs do not sound very American, not the kind of thing we put on government building walls. Hamilton believed in order for our nation to last it must be tied to the wealthy and elite, they had to have a rooting interest. In order to understand Hamilton you much understand how all the founders saw our nation, as an experiment. We today have over 200 years of experience and knowledge, we know our nation will be become a mighty and great country. They did not have that insight. Most of them saw the possibility of failure as probable. At their time not a single other government in the world was a democracy. In fact in the history of world only the Greeks and the Romans even tried a democracy and they both failed. Why would America be any different? Hamilton believed we had a greater chance of our little experiment failing then succeeding. The only way our government would make it is if the wealthy and elite wanted it to succeed. Who cared what the poor wanted, they did not have the time or the ability to guarantee the success of the Constitution, they were busy tried to keep their families from going hungry. If the poor supported the government but the wealthy and powerful did not, our government would not have stood a snowballs chance in hell of survival. Anyone who takes a few moments to comprehend this will know that Hamilton was correct; the problem is it does not sound good. We do not want to admit that Hamilton was right. Hamilton also had problems with democracy which does not endear him to modern politicians.

The thing about Hamilton is that today we are a Hamiltonian nation. What created the first political parites in this country were different versions of what we should become. Jefferson and his Republicans wanted a land full of small farmers where everyone would own land. Land ownership in early America was essential for freedom, hence why the founders made land ownership criteria for voting. If you did not own your own land or were your own boss then you rented and were under the control of someone else. In the days before the secret ballot, if you did not vote the way your employer told you to, then you might be out of job or kicked off your farm. In other words land ownership made you free. With this in mind a nation of small yeoman farmers to Jefferson would make us the freest and greatest nation on earth. Jefferson also believed the federal government should be weak and that that state government should have most of the power.

Hamilton and the Federalists however saw things different. Hamilton saw that England was the most powerful nation and wanted to model us after then. To be great Hamilton wanted America to become an industrial power. He believed our survival depended on a strong federal government that could protect American industry and growth. These two men and their parties fought viciously against each other with the understanding that if the other won, our national experiment would fail. Jefferson and the Republicans did win the elections, but as anyone who is reading this has to realize that Hamilton won the struggle. American is not a nation of small farmers, but the greatest industrial and most powerful nation in the world. We do not have time to cover this now, but Jefferson talked one way, but acted another. The Hamilton governmental policies he put in place during the Federalists presidencies were so effective that the Republicans did not dismantle them and actually built upon them.

Jefferson will always be more famous than Hamilton, everyone loves a good sound bite and Jefferson had some of the best, but you really want to get to the heart of our government it is Hamilton not Jefferson who needed to be understood. Why I like Chernow’s book is because he gives a great history of nation building but in the medium of a biography. Instead of a straight forward history we have a story to follow, a story of love, betrayal, affairs, war, feuds, and a very famous death that capotes our attention. In the end we know a lot about the man, but through him we know a lot about the nation.

Obama's problem with Iran

2009-09-28T09:02:00.002-05:00

I think Obama’s biggest issue in his presidency will not be health care, but Iran. He might find himself in the difficult position of either losing the trust of the American people if they feel he cannot protect them or isolating himself from his own party if he acts aggressively. This is a serious issue and so I hate to say I told you so, but I predicted his back in Oct of last year. Instead of hashing it out again, feel free to click here and read how what I said before he was elected might just come true. Dropping another nuclear weapon is closer than I think most people believe. I do not believe Israel will allow Iran to build a bomb. I think they will drop their own bomb first. I am not pro nuclear bombs, but I would not blame Israel. If Iran builds a bomb, they are in grave danger, for their own protection they may act first. Unlike our president, Israel does not ask what everyone thinks before they act, they act out of self preservation, they do not care about being popular.

Carter-America is racist

2009-09-16T09:35:00.002-05:00

Well it has finally happened; my only surprise is that it took so long. In an interview today on the Today Show, ex-President Jimmy Carter said the reason Obama is being criticized is because we are racists. There are two major points that need to be made, first Carter needs to shut up, and second this statement is absurd and offensive.

First things first, Carter needs to shut up. There is an unwritten rule in politics that ex-presidents stay out of politics. You have not heard any of the other ex-presidents weigh in on this issue. We know how each of them stands; they do not need to be critical of those who took their place. Of all the people, they know how hard this job is, and so usually have dignity and leave their thoughts to themselves. Well until lately. Carter came out a while ago and began to bash Bush while he was still president. I wrote about it then how it makes Carter look classless. But now he is still talking and sounding senile. One reason Carter needs to remain quiet is well who is he to criticize anyone. In case anyone is reading this and do not know about the Carter Presidency, let me fill you in. Carter may be the worst president we have ever had. If you do remember the Carter years I will not have to tell you that. Even Democrats when they are honest have to admit he was ineffective. You might really love the guy, but he was not a good leader. What right does a guy like that have to criticize anyone else? The thing about Carter is that he has redeemed himself in the eyes of most Americans. He does a lot of good for many people, especially with organizations like Habitat for Humanity. He is seen now as that kind old Uncle who had some problems, but is old now and a nice guy and so we just forget about all the mistakes he made as president. If he does not stop making such stupid remarks, people just might start remembering why Reagan beat him 489 to 49 in 1980. Part of the blowout was Reagan was just that good, but a big part of it was that Carter was that bad. I actually have some respect for Carter. I do believe one of the reasons he was ineffective as President was that he had strong moral values, he was a very religious man. In fact he was so religious that he was not willing to make the kind of compromises Presidents are forced to make. You have to sell your soul to be the President today by making a deal somewhere along the way with someone bad. Carter never would and it cost him, I respect him for that. Yet I am quickly losing my respect for him, I may have to start teaching my students a different story about Carter, maybe he was a bit more calculated politically than I thought.

The bigger issue is the actually statement. This is absurd, but expected. I wrote back during the election my fear of voting in a black president. Does an African American have the ability to lead, most definetly yes. Are they smart, I believe Obama has proven that. My fear was that the first time things went bad the race card would be played, and here we go. So the President has proposed a very radical plan. Now whether you support or oppose the plan you must agree that it is radical. As with every radical plan there are going to be many who have strong opposition to the plan. But yet when Obama purposes a radical plan and people fight it, they are racists according to Carter. So does he think that if a white man asked for government takeover of health care the entire population would openly embrace it? If it were a white president when he gave his press conference would he wink in the camera as a sign that it’s OK to vote for his, it’s OK (wink) I’m white. No, there would be as much resistance against this whether it is a white or black president. It’s not the president, it’s the plan. It is bad and even dangerous. How can he call us racists? The majority of this nation less than a year ago voted for a black man to be president, were we racist then? So when we vote for a black man it is fine, but when we disagree with anything he proposes we suddenly turn to a nation of racists. Carter’s statement would be funny if racism was not such a serious topic in this nation. He called the Rep for S.C. racist. That is the most damming accusation you can make in politics. You are better off being a drunk or womanizer (Kennedy is being honored everyday since his death) or a tax cheat (half of Obama’s cabinet is that) or even have it whispered you were involved in a murder or selling out your country (these may not be true but both Clintons were accused of such crimes), but call someone a racists and you might as well quit (ask Bob Dole who resigned as Senate Majority leader after making a slip about supporting Senator Strom Thurman during his 1948 presidential run where he supported segregation). Carter could ruin this man’s career for a statement where he had no proof other than his own crazy ideas.

Carter made one more statement in a speech that I want to make one comment on. Carter said “The president is not only the head of government, he is the head of state. And no matter who he is or how much we disagree with his policies, the president should be treated with respect." I could not agree with him more, I just have to wonder where Carter has been the past four years, Oh yeah he was criticizing the president.

The Story of Obama's New Clothes and Socialism

2009-08-31T13:00:00.002-05:00

It has been a long time since my last post. I kind of burned out and so took the summer off. We had a great summer traveling around the west and visiting AZ, NM, CO, and UT. Now I am back and starting a new semester and had an interesting conversation today. This year I am assigning Looking Backwards by Edward Bellamy. Bellamy was a socialist who wrote in the 1880. His novel was about a guy who fell asleep in 1880 and woke up in 2000. This new world in which he now lived was a perfect world according to Bellamy. The point of his novel was to compare all the problems of his day and contrasting them to this perfect society. What made the world in 2000 so perfect was that the government had taken over all business, so that everyone made the same amount of money and every just did whatever job made them happy. Bellamy spells out in detail how this new society works. What is interesting is that all my students realize that this would never work. That this guy in the 1880s had no idea about how people today think. What I find interesting is that these are the same kids who support Obama. I had to explain to them that Obama is trying to do just what Bellamy wanted, health care is just the first step. So when they read this novel they saw it as impossible when they took out the current political impact. If I said this book was written by Obama they would love it, but in its historical context they all criticized it, not one student thought Bellamy’s plan would work today, but most think Obama is right on tract. To me it proves that Obama’s plan is not practical, but political. This is why the founders so feared a dema-gog, or a president who wins solely on popularity and not his political views. For that president can put forth a plan with no merits and pass it based on his appeal. Our best hope is that more Americans can see though the Hollywood persona of Obama and finally realize once and for all that the Emperor has no clothes.

My Spanish Experience

2009-06-07T16:54:00.000-05:00

If you are not a member of the LDS faith than this post will mean nothing to you, but I had an interesting experience today. I was recently called to serve on the High Council in church and part of my duties is to speak in different wards and to handle stake business. I am perfectly capable of carrying out those duties in a normal stake, but here in south Texas there are a few challenges. Of the seven wards in our stake only three are English speaking wards. So today I had to conduct stake business in a Spanish-speaking ward, but the problem is I do not speak Spanish. All the members were very nice and tried to speak to me until they realized I was clueless as to what they were saying. The Bishop spoke English good enough to know that I had business. I was able to give my greeting in Spanish but had to do the business in English. The young woman that I had to sustain was in that ward; luckily she speaks English so she knew when to stand up. All and all it was interesting, especially attending an entire sacrament meeting without knowing what anyone was saying. What I found the most interesting was that it was one of the best Testimony meetings I have been to. It is amazing how spiritual a testimony meeting can be without all the testimonies and long personal stories detracting from it. It made for an interesting day and I guess I am going to have to start working on my Spanish.

Lets Bring Back the Whig Party

2009-05-30T19:20:00.001-05:00

I know it has been a very long time since I have written, but I have been so overwhelmed by our political situation that I have given up. I also did not want to be a basher of the President without giving him time to accomplish something. But he has had his 100 days now and I cannot remain silent. I have no idea where to start; Obama has hurt us so badly in such a short time that I do not want to list everything. If you think the same as me then you agree and if not I will not be able to convince you of anything. So instead I want to make a proposal.

The Democrats are taking the nation down a bad path. In a very short time they will own large amounts of some of our biggest companies such as Chrysler. There is only one word for this type of government and that is socialism. The Democrats deny that they want to be socialists, but by definition when the government owns the means of production they are socialists. Secondly, this week Obama has proposed a national sales tax similar to Europe and Canada. I am waiting to see how the public will take it. Obama promised he would cut taxes, but cutting taxes and raising sales to around 25% would be the greatest bait and switch ever. I would think the public would be outraged over this plan, but so far they are accepting it hook and sinker. There is no way that I can support the Democrats

So what is my alternative, the Republicans? Right now that does not seem to be a viable option for my political beliefs. The GOP is being divided into two wings, and neither side bring me any confidence. One wing is the Michael Steel side. Steel is the new head of the GOP and wants to build the party by being the big tent party. He has said if we do not make the party more “Hip Hop” then they will die. What he and other men like General Powell are saying is that we need to become more moderate, or open to different ideas and lifestyles. They are listening to the media that are saying if the GOP does not expand they will die. Why they are listening to the media, I do not know. Who in the press keeps giving the GOP advice, the Democrats. Why would the Democrats want to the help the Republicans, the answer is they do not, they just want the GOP to be more like them. My fear is that many Republicans are buying into this. All they hear is that the party is in real danger and needs to change. The problem is that yes the party is in danger. It is in danger of losing people and me who are truly conservative and will not support Steel. Why would anyone support a party that is liberal light when they can just be a Democrat and be real liberal? By the way why was Powell so upset when Cheney said we was no longer a Republican. If I remember right, Powell came out and openly supported Obama in the election. When someone campaigns for the Democrats I just assume he is one, but I guess not in Powell’s world.

The other wing of the party is not much better, the Rush Limbaugh/Dick Cheney wing. The thing about them is that I agree completely with their ideas. I do believe we can best grow our party by giving voters a true alternative, a real conservative voice. The Republicans have based their victories over the past 40 years on the silent majority. The reason they are called silent is because they don’t say much, but are conservative. I believe the party will come back if we stand for something, and stand up to Obama. The problem with this wing is the spokesman. I like Rush’s ideas, but I struggle listening to Rush. Rush will fight against the Democrats just because they are democrats whether or not the ideas are good or not (yes the Democrats did the same thing, but lets be bigger than them). For every good argument he has he spends hours ranting against minor things so you lose his more important ideas. I like Cheney, I trust him when he speaks. I trust him more than anyone I have heard in the past 10 years. He is unpopular, because he does tell the truth. But Cheney like Rush is very controversial. They will not have the ability to pull in new members, even if their ideas are sound. Yet no one else has stepped up.

So what is the alternative, I have decided to leave the GOP. The Libertarians are too radical for me. I do believe there is a role for government oversight. As a 19th century historian I do not believe true Laissez-Fair government is the answer. You could follow the outline for the American dream, like work hard day and night for years, but in the age of the Robber Barons you could work as hard as you want and not make progress. Some government regulation is necessary. So if the Democrats, the Republicans, and the libertarians do not fit the only answer is to start a new party, or maybe bring back a new one. There have been some great parties in the past like the Populists, the Bucktails, or the Anti-Masons. Some have had great names like the Bull Moose Party, the Know-Nothings, or Loco-Focos. Each of these parties has good qualities, but also would not capture my beliefs. However there was one dominant party in the early 19th century that is perfect, the Whig party.

In 1838 Andrew Jackson ran against the incumbent John Quincy Adams. An odd aspect of this election was that both men were running as Republicans. For the past ten years or so America had been in a political age known as the Era of Good Feelings when we had a one party system. The problems was even though by name they all agreed, in theory they were still divided. In 1838 the Jackson/Van Buren wing of the party began calling themselves Democratic Republicans to distinguish their beliefs (the Jeffersonian Republican ideas) from the Adams/Henry Clay Republicans. With the victory of Jackson in 1838, the American government would never be the same. It was Jackson who would make the president powerful. Jackson vetoed more bills in his presidency than the previous six had combined. Unlike the other presidents Jackson vetoed bills not because he felt they were bad for the nation, but simply because he was not in favor of it. Jackson took power for himself that many thought were dangerous. Those that opposed Jackson started calling him King Andrew. In England the party that opposed the King were the Whigs, so Henry Clay and all those who opposed King Andrew followed suit and began referring to them selves as Whigs. By the next election Jackson had dropped the Democratic Republican label for the just the Democrats while the other major party were now organized as Whigs.

I believe it is time to bring back the Whig party. With King Obama taking more power for himself than any president has the right to, once again we need a party that will stand up to him. By standing up to King Obama, I mean more than just fight against him and his programs, but give voters a real alterative. I want a conservative party who stands for what Americans like me believe. A party that believe in families and conservative ideas. A party that will not fold to political correctness or toleration. The Steel wing of the Republican Party believes we need more tolerance, but I believe we should never tolerate what is wrong. As our nation goes down a dark path, I believe more Americans will ultimately crave someone or a party that will stand up for what they believe.

So my call is to bring back the Whigs. We do not want old Republicans who do not believe and think like us, they can stay in the GOP. I do not believe there is anything wrong in saying that. Why do we want people in our party who do not believe like us? That does not make us bad people, we are not saying they can’t vote or join a party, just not join ours. Why would you want to be a member of the New Whig Party if you have different ideas then us? The Pope does not make Protestants or Jews Cardinals, that would not make sense and no one seems to have a problem with it. But if we don’t want pro-choice people in our party than we become closed minded and wrong.

I have considered myself a Republican as long as I can remember, and it is not easy to leave my party, but our current third party system is the longest one in American History and needs a change. I am sure the first two American party systems—the Federalists and Anti-Federalist, or the Whigs and Democrats never thought their parties would die either. Yet they did and for the better, a new parties would always grown out of the old. I think it is time for the fourth American party system, the socialists and the Whigs. The Republicans and Democrats will not agree, but lets not ask them. We are a government of the people, not parties and I think the parties have forgotten that point. Unfortunately parties are a way of life, but we can take back the parties and make them represent us, they should fit our needs not us fit theirs.

This will not be easy, but lets give it a shot. Start talking to your friends and see if we cannot get a grass roots movement. If we can get enough buzz for the right kind of change then we can try taking the next step.

Are people just getting dumber

2009-03-26T09:22:00.003-05:00

I had two funny things happen today in class while I was giving an exam, I thought I would share. One students came up to me after we handed out the test. She asked if she could give her test back and study a bit more and then start the test over. In the same class I had a student come up with a question about one of the questions. He said he was not in class the day we talked about the Constitution and so wanted me to give him help to answer the question. I guess if you don't ask you never know. But come on, are people just getting dumber.

Remember Goliad

2009-03-19T11:48:00.005-05:00

Kids at Fannin Memorial

Fannin Memorial

Church inside the Presidio La Bahia

KIds inside the Presidio La Bahia

Kids at The Battle of Coleto Memorial

Being that it is spring break the family decided to go camping. I love camping and so does my oldest, but this was the first time for my youngest who is 19 months. We have been putting if off for a while, but decided we needed to get out. There is much more of our trip on my wife’s page, what I wanted to talk about was where we went.

Three hours northeast of us is Goliad, TX an important spot when it comes to the history of Texas’s independence. When the Texas troops beat the army of Santa Anna at the Battle of San Jacinto they yelled Remember the Alamo, Remember Goliad. However, most have seemed to forget the Goliad part. In 1836 when the Texans decided to break away from Mexican control two armies were formed, one at San Antonio under command of Lt Col William Travis. This group used a small church known as the Alamo as their headquarters. The other group took the more important position at Goliad under the command of Col James Walker Fannin. What made Goliad so important was the Presidio La Bahia, the only real fortification in Texas.

When the Mexican dictator, General Santa Anna, decided to quail the rebellion in Texas he marched his forces up to San Antonio to deal with Travis. At the same time to protect his flank he sent General Jose Urrea up the coast of Texas to Goliad. Santa Anna arrived first, and most know that story. Not only was Travis defeated, but all his men including Davy Crocket and Jim Bowie. The story of the Alamo is an amazing one and deserves its place in American history, but I believe having celebrities die like Crocket and Bowie have made it so big that it has kidnapped the story of Texas and left the story of Goliad untold. When Travis sent for help when he realized his position was impossible, the main person he was hoping would come was Fannin. Fannin did leave the safety of the Presidio La Bahia and began the march towards the Alamo, but his poor planning made them leave late and shortly after they began the march they received news that the Alamo had fallen and that a large Mexican force was marching towards them. Fannin brought his men back to Goliad. With a large Mexican force arriving, Fannin sent out a detachment to assist settlers fleeing out of General Urrea’s path. When the first detachment did not return he sent out a second. What Fannin did not know was that both detachments had been captured and that all who surrendered where executed. On March 14th Fannin received word from the new supreme Texas commander Sam Houston that Goliad was isolated without the Alamo and that he and his men should burn the Presidio and fall back and join Houston. Fannin, not knowing the fate of his two detachments, waited for their return a little too long. He also, once again had logistical problems with leaving.

When Fannin and his 350 men did leave, Urrea was only two hours behind them. When Urrea’s Calvary caught up with Fannin at Coleto Creek, Fannin decided to fight. The Texas army fought well and bravely all day against increasingly larger odds. The Texans knew they could break through the Mexican lines that night, but also knew they would have to leave their wounded, including Fannin. With a determination to stay and fight, the Texans began the next morning, but quickly realized that the Mexican reinforcements brought up over night were too large and that they were surrounded. The Texans asked for a parley and were given generous terms of surrender by Urrea, but reminded that the ultimate decision was up to Santa Anna. The Texans were promised to be treated as prisoners of war, medical care to their wounded, and eventual release to the U.S.

Unfortunately for Fannin and his men, Santa Anna was not in a giving mood. Santa Anna order Urrea to execute all the surviving men. On Palm Sunday, 4 days from today, General Urrea marched the Texas out of their encampment in three separate groups in different directions and had his men shoot them down. Around 40 men were left and executed one by one at the Presidio, with Fannin being the last to die. In the end around 340 Texas soldier were massacred, adding to the legend of the brutality of Santa Anna. How this story is not more known I do not know. Again the story of the Alamo is inspirational, but 340 men surrendering, believing to be treated as prisoners is devastating. This story was not lost on the men who defeated Santa Anna’s army when they charged yelling Remember the Alamo, Remember Goliad. We have all remembered the Alamo, unfortunately we have forgotten Goliad.

My family and I had a great few days camping out, but what made it most memorable was visiting those historic places that helped shaped the story of Texas and his nation.

What can the Great Depression tell us about today

2009-03-11T14:29:00.004-05:00

I had an interesting discussion today about possible social consequences of the current economic times. In class we are discussing the Great Depression and all the hardships that went along with it. I always like to look at culture during any time period, because I believe culture is influenced by the social and political events . What we see during the Depression is a major conservative backlash against the liberalism of the 1920s. The roaring 20s was a decade of decadence and a laxing of rules, but as the economy fell so did moral decay. This was clearly visible in Hollywood where they forced to censure their own work. The famous example of the shock of movie goers is at the famous line in Gone with the Wind, “I don’t give a damn.” Audiences were angered by swearing on film, something they could have gotten away with in the 20s. Another Hollywood example was the actress Hedy Lamarr who at a young age made the German film Exstase in which she appeard completely nude. The movie was a hit in Europe and won awards, but was completely banned in America.

The question I was asked in class was if we continue to slip into a depression will we have a conservative backlash? My answer is I do not know, but looking at history tells me yes. There has been a constant flow between liberalism and conservatism over the past hundred years and the reasons for those changes are all different. The 1920s was a very liberal period, followed by a very socially conservative decade of the 1930s. The 1950s was very socially conservative but then the 1960s and 70s were extremely liberal. The 1980s were conservative, while the past 10 years we have been moving closer to Sodom and Gomorra. Note that I sometimes said socially conservative, because in the 1930s they were socially conservative , but FDR and his politics were anything but.

It seems like cosmic forces makes sure we never get too far one way or the other. As a Christian I have to wonder what role God plays in all this. I am not one to make the claim that God created the Depression or our recession to humble us, but I am not one to say that he did not either.
If we do follow a similar pattern as the great depression, it could be good news for some Democrats. The liberal policies were very popular in the 30s. Though the people were conservative, many were economically liberal. With Obama throwing around money and playing to the sympathies of the people, if the recession continues or get worse, he may make another four years if he could convince the people he tried. FDR did not fix the depression and easily won reelection, twice. People were happy that he tried. Other Democrats like Pelosi will not be as happy. If the trend that I see follows, then most of the new Democrats elected will be conservative Democrats socially. They will want to help the poor but not throw all social values to the wind. These are the kind of the Democrats that will be elected during a depression. And so even though the Democrats may be able to keep the power, it would be a socially conservative Democratic party, which will allow Republicans to go even more conservative.

As a historian I do believe we can predict trends from looking at the past. And from studying the Great Depression I predict that if the economy gets worst, we will become more conservative socially, but not economically and if the Democratic party can understand that they can win many more elections. If however their power base of old line liberals fight it, they could find themselves out of power.

The Hip-Hop GOP

2009-03-03T17:21:00.001-06:00

I worry about the future of the Republican Party; I worry so much I am finding it hard to call myself a Republican. I felt this way during the primaries last year as McCain was able to beat the two conservative candidates and capture the nomination. But what I saw two nights ago I found even more disturbing. There were two different interviews being conducted at the same time, one on Fox news with Mike Huckabee interviewing Russell Simmons (founder of Def Jam Records) and on CNN with D.L. Hugely interviewing the new RNC chairman Michael Steele. Both parts of the interview that I saw were about the same subject, how Republicans need to bring hip-hop into the party. I believe there is nothing further from the truth. I have not seen the interview yet, but I believe that Rush Limbaugh and Steele even got into an argument over a similar argument. I do not always agree with Limbaugh, but I completely do on this subject. I have hated watching the Republican Party feel like they need to move away from their roots to capture future voters.

I believe moving away from what we believe will be the downfall of the party. Republicans controlled the white house for 32 of the past 44 years. They did it by standing for something better and attracting people towards them. If we lessen our principles to bring in new voters, or change our beliefs to fit current fads, we will lose many of the voters we already have. I know everyone is concerned that the GOP is too old and needs to attract younger voters, but it is impossible to mix conservative values with hip-hop. The two ideas are at polar opposites. Hip-hop is about being gangster and respecting no one but thugs. If you watch the videos and listen to the music they celebrate violence, drugs, and a pimp attitude towards women. I know rock-n-roll was seen as sex and drugs in its early years, but that is a far cry from a song I heard in the gym a few months ago where the singer was asking “where are my F**king N***ers at”, or how we need to slap a ho. The attitude of conservatives and the attitude of hip-hop can never truly blend. If the Republican Party wants in any way to go hip-hop, it will no longer be the party for me and other conservatives.

I have talked about this before, but the current GOP got its start by courting what became known as the silent majority. In the 60s they were the ones who did not make a lot of noise, but turned out to vote. I believe the silent majority is still out there today. We do not hear from them because they are busy going about their daily lives, working and taking care of their families. There are plenty that still believe in traditional family values and want a party that supports those values. If the GOP tries to incorporate any type of hip-hop than we are not giving the silent majority any alternative to the Democrats. Instead go the other way, don’t be Democrats light, be conservatives. Why would anyone vote for Democrats light (like McCain) when you can vote for the real thing, a real Democrat? The Republicans need to be conservative. They need real conservatives to stand up and take the leadership.

In the late 1900s, it is difficult to distinguish the differences between the Democrat and Republican parties. It took a third party, the Populists, to shake things up. The Populists stood for something completely different from the main two parties. Only after the success of the Populists did the Democrats, who had not won an election in years, change their political philosophy to capture voters. I wrote about the 1896 election back in November if you want to read more about it here. I am not sure, but if the GOP keeps trying to move close to the Democrats, something like a new Conservative party may need to rise up. The Liberation party has the feel of the old Populists party. A small grass roots movement and over time had real followers. I do not agree with the principles of the Liberation party, just like most could not get behind the radical stance of the Populists, but when the Populists and Democrats merged, the Democrats took some of the good ideas and dropped the radical ones. We still have time to save the GOP, but if they keep going astray from conservative values, a fusion with the Liberations may be the only hope of victory in the future.

In the end I believe the GOP needs to stand for its traditional values and not try to change itself to incorporate any new hip-hop values. I believe even many of the young will come to appreciate and respect these values. We should not change to meet new electors, but sway those electors that what we believe is correct.

Did Americans invent the car?

2009-02-26T20:20:00.002-06:00

I do not think there is much I can add to the President’s address on Tuesday night that has already been said. I liked some of his ideas; I do think we have some serious issues that need addressing. If the President can do all that he said and not raise taxes then he is a miracle worker, I just don’t believe that is possible. I feel like he is still campaigning making a lot of promises without defining how he plans on doing anything. I do not think he can spend all this money that he announced today and not raise taxes, the rich can only be taxed so much.

As a historian I wanted to make one correction of the President in his address, it is minor, but I think it represents a lot. Obama said that we were the nation that invented the car. A minor mistake yes, but still a mistake. The Germans invented the car, it was the Americans that took the car and ran with it. We have the greatest car culture in world history. Men like Ford and Alfred Sloan (Pres of GM) revolutionized the car. Ford began the assembly line that decreased the time it took the car from 12 hours to 90 minutes. This decrease in time allowed the price of the car to be lowered to where every American family can buy one. Sloan in his brilliance marketed cars differently than Ford. Where as Ford said you can buy any color Ford as long as it was black, Sloan thought he could get people to spend more money on cars if he added more bells and whistles. What Sloan did was convince people they are what they drive, something we now all take for granted. But for all that these two men did, one thing they did not do was invent the car.

Now I realize that was a small mistake, but I think it says something. This was the state of the Union, and yes it was small, but it was a mistake. For something as big as the state of the Union he should take the time to do a little bit of research or have an aid do some very simple basic research to know who did invent the car. But instead Obama acted quickly without knowing the facts and just assumed. Now again this is a small easy mistake, but it seems like maybe he is doing the same thing with everything else. In his rush to make the people happy he is just acting quickly and not taking the time to make sure he gets it right. When it is who invented the car, no big deal, but when he acts the same way towards the economy that is a very big deal. Sometimes being president means to do the right thing not the popular thing. I think he thinks throwing money at everything is the right thing, but maybe he should take a few moments to think about it. If he has a plan to pay for all this he is being tight lipped, my guess is he is just acting quickly and will figure out how to pay for it later. So Mr. President, Karl Benz of Germany invented the car, and throwing money at everything will not fix the problem

Blessings only come after a trial of your faith.

2009-02-19T18:55:00.001-06:00

I have not been writing as much as I did awhile back, and even though there are plenty of political issues that I can make comparisons to, other personal issues have distracted me. I have enjoyed blogging, it is like therapy for me, so once again I am going to leave political issues aside and write a very personal blog. I am a big believer in the concept that blessings only come after a trial of faith, I have seen this work several times in my life, I guess I am just getting tired of it. I love what I do for a living, being a college professor, and I think I am very good at what I do, but sometimes I feel every force in the world is combining to make sure that does not happen.

Every step of my journey down this road has been difficult, but every time I think it will come to an end, a door opens for me. When I was first applying for masters programs I was turned down from every school I wanted. I guess I was in a state of denial over my own greatness. I thought I would have to decide between several top schools, especially coming out of William and Mary. However to my shock and horror the only school that accepted me was Va Tech, my fallback school. To make matters worse I was not offered an assistantship. I should have taken the hint right there and chosen another course for my career. I remember breaking down when Penn State rejected me, but I decided that we would try Tech. Now anyone who knows me knows I hold Va Tech and Blacksburg in very high regard. I think I may never have been happier than I was there. It turns out the program was perfect for me. It was a small program where I got to know my professors well. I developed a relationship with my two civil war professors who still help me today. I was the big man on campus within the history department; I was the president of the grad program and was called on for every important duty. Within the first month of my first semester, I was even given an assistantship. Personally, professionally, and spiritually everything came together. I know I was led to Blacksburg, but at the time making the decision to go there was very difficult.

After my two years of Va Tech I had to move onto a Ph.D. program and once again the same situation. Because of poor GRE scores I was denied entry to all the schools I applied to except one. When I was searching for schools at a conference my professor introduced me to Dan Sutherland at the University of Arkansas. I found him to be very pleasant when so many other professors were not. I really had no interest in Arkansas but I decided I should apply just incase. As I am sure you can guess, Arkansas was the only school I got into, and once again with no assistantship. (Just for clarification an assistantship is being paid by the department to go to school and they cover all your costs. But even more important is working with the department and with the professors and even teaching your own classes or at least being a TA, in other words getting some experience.) This was a big decision, should we move to Arkansas? Things had changed some now, Jake my oldest was born, so there was a lot riding on me. Here again I should have called it a wash and gone and gotten a real job, but I still knew this was my calling and after much thought and prayer we decided to go. While I was making this decision I received some great advice from my sister-in-law Jenny’s father. He told me God was not trying to mold me into being a great history professor but was trying to make me a celestial being and that is why sometimes it is so hard. So off we went to Arkansas, with nothing more than faith.

We were so scared to move to Arkansas, as most know it does not have the best reputation, but I would move back there in a heartbeat, we loved it. Once again things came through quickly. In the first semester one of the other students quit the program and I received their assistantship. I did well while at Arkansas, not as well as Va Tech, but we were happy. It was a struggle every year when assistantships were renewed and I was never given one. I would have to wait months on the waiting list, very discouraged, but every year it came through. Once again I believed I grew at Arkansas and would not change it for the world.

After I finished Comps I was presented an opportunity from the Chair of the department. He heard the University of Texas-Pan American was looking for lecturers for a three-year contract and paid well. I was already in my 4th year at Arkansas and they did not always give people a 5th so I applied and got the job. Things seemed to be turning around for me. A three-year contract was awesome. I would have time to finish my dissertation and apply for tenure track jobs without the pressure of being unemployed for three years.

That brings me to the present. I am in my third year of my contract and am applying for jobs. Unfortunately for me this is the worst year in the past 50 years to go on the job market. A good portion of the jobs out there canceled their search because they lost funding. I was always hoping that if nothing else we could stay here for another year, but I found out yesterday that because of a big political mess here all the lecturers who are up for renewal would not be kept. It is a real shame, not only me but lecturers who have been here for 15 years and are on the down side of their working years are being pushed out because members of the faculty have a political agenda and we are pawns in the way. So here I am again, I have no idea what I am going to do next year. My chair has tried to calm my nerves by telling me he should be able to hire me as an emergency lecturer next year, but I hate to put all my eggs in that one basket.

I did have one interview with Ashland University in Ohio. It is a small liberal arts university in a small town, but I think it is a job I would enjoy. I had a campus interview over two weeks ago, but they had to interview two others after me. It has been over a week now since the last interview and I have not heard anything. I do not know what that means, either they have not decided (in academics that is very possible) or they have chosen someone else and are waiting to tell me until after they sign the contract. Either way with the news Friday of not being renewed here, much more is riding on this one job. So far this may be the ultimate trial of my faith. There is so much more riding on this than at any other time. I now have three kids and a ridiculous amount of student loans. I still know this is my calling; even my mom does not bug me about law school after she saw me in the classroom. But this is hard. I try so hard to be faithful, and follow the gospel. I serve hard in all my callings at church and really try to depend on the Lord. I know I have always been led, but as every day passes and I do not get a call for Ashland I struggle. I have come too far to turn back now, I want to continue this career, but I cannot do it alone, I need help, and I just hope help comes. I know it is only after a trial of my faith that the blessings come, I just don’t know how long I can continue being tried. I am entering my mid 30s and still do not have a full time job or a home or any of the things I thought I would have by this age. For now I will just continue to pray and continue to hope. I need the blessings; I just hope the trials are almost over. If we do not get this job, I do not know what to do next. I just hope when we look back we will see that once again we were led to the right place to do the right thing.

Sorry this seems like just complaining, but it is consuming my life. Everyday I think the call will come and when the day ends I am just that much more depressed. It has even begun to affect my physically. I have been getting headaches and dizzy spells. They have gotten so bad that the doctor sent me in for an MRI, but came back negative. That was fun sitting around for a few days thinking I might have a tumor. I am just trying to remember that I am blessed. I have the best wife I could every hope for who is trying hard to ease my pain. I love my kids, and do realize just how blessed I am to have special little ones around me. My parents and my in-laws have been very helpful and my siblings very supportive. In so many ways we are so blessed, I am just trying to focus more on that. I have some important decisions to make soon, I just hope that once again we are led to the best place for me and my family.

Obama's First Press Conference

2009-02-10T16:17:00.000-06:00

I realize it has been quite a long time since I have posted anything. I have struggled about what to post over the past months. The problem is I am trying not to be a hypocrite. I was always critical about how Bush was treated while acting as president and I do not want to do the same towards Obama. I do not agree with people like Rush Limbaugh who began their attack campaign on Obama’s first day. I know they disagree, but it seems like they are just trying to find any little issue to blow up into a scandal. Anyone who reads this knows I did not support Obama, but he is now my president, and just like I made the claim that Bush deserved some respect just for the position he held, I am trying to give that same courtesy to Obama. I hope he is successful, I hope this stimulus package works and the economy is revived. That is what separates me from someone like Limbaugh or Coulter, they are hoping he fails I hope he succeeds. I want what’s best for our nation and if he can fix some of the issues that have plagued us over the years, I might even vote for him. However, I do not believe that will be the case, and I do not believe the way he is going about change is positive, but I wanted to let him and will continue to let him try. However, after last night’s speech I have a few issues and an observation and I cannot remain silent.

The first issue began to bug me Saturday night as I watched Saturday Night Live. I know they have an agenda and are not meant to be taken seriously, but I have a problem when they change the facts. Then in Obama’s speech last night he alluded to the same idea, that is the Republicans have been in charge for the past 8 years, and it was complete Republican control when the economy tanked. When discussing politics this is an issue that is hard to convey to students who do not fully understand or not really paying attention. Most people associate the President with the government, in other words just because Bush was president that Republicans made all the decisions. However, for the past two years, it was the Democrats running the Congress and not the Republicans. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were running their perspective branches of government, not the Republicans. Obama kept blaming the Republicans last night for the all the financial problems, but he needs to look at the Democrats involvement. Take this stimulus package right now, it is not the president making it, but congress. The president of the U.S. does not have a single dime of his own to spend, the congress controls 100% of all U.S. funds. Pay attention to the next state of the Union speech, Obama will spend a portion of it asking Congress for money for his programs. Without congressional approval, the president can do nothing.

So to say that Republicans were in complete control when the economy collapsed is false, they only ran the White House, but Democrats ran Congress. So it was Democrats that headed all the important committees including the ones dealing with the economy. It was Democrats that allowed spending to get out of control and allowed the housing market to tank, and allowed banks to deal with bad paper. The President should have watched also, but it was the Democratic Congressmen and Senators that led us down this road, the same ones that now think they have the answers, which is just more of the same they did to create the problem.

As for the stimulus package itself, Obama was wrong last night when he said there was no pork. He should have said earmarks. A great amount of the money being given to the states does not have any specific requirements, and can be used by the states for anything. It is government wistful spending at its worse. I disagree with Obama that Republicans want to do nothing. Everyone understands the economy needs a boost, they just don’t agree with the approach. As for myself, if I get a check in the mail for $1000 great, but I will not use it to stimulate the economy. It will either go directly to pay off credit cards or go to savings so I do not need to use my card when the next situation arises (by the way Obama blew off the question asked about this last night). The only way to get people spending is a tax break, not a credit, but a break. A one time credit is the same as a check in the mail, but a break means that same money on a continued basis, or in other words everyone gets a raise, it will create consumer confidence which leads to spending. Obama is trying to play to the masses that do not know better. He promised them change and now has to act on that. What better way to please everyone than sending them a check and blame everything bad that is happening and will happen on Bush. Obama can tell his supporters that at least I gave you a check. Also if he makes the situation sound bad enough, like saying if we do not fix this now, we may never fix it is not responsible. What he is doing is making people scared while blaming the Republicans if things go bad, and if he makes it sound direr enough and then we come out of the recession he looks that much better. How is this different from past political games? How is this bipartisan?

I know this is long, but I have one other observation from last night. As a political historian I have enjoyed this past year. In my years of teaching I have never seen students so interested in the political process. I spent several classes discussing the primaries or the election so much that we never got to that days lecture, and I was fine with that. Well I opened up today’s classes with asking about what everyone thought about Obama’s speech. In my two classes of about a combined 120 students, only 5 watched the speech or could even talk about the major issue. I even had several who had no idea what the stimulus package was or cared. I thought the love affair with Obama would last, but has not. They still love him and cheer when I mention his name, but already one of his largest groups of supporters has lost interest. They may come back in 4 years to reelect him, after not paying attention to any of his policies. The main answer I got today was that they do not like the package, but do not think they can stop it. Most of my students that have paid attention think it is wasteful spending. However according to Obama last night, the American people want his plan, yet I spoke to the American people today and either they did not know about the plan or felt it was not effective. I am so glad we got change.

Can Teddy Roosevelt Explain Hilary’s Appointment?

2009-01-14T14:41:00.001-06:00

Tomorrow the Senate is expected to vote in Hillary Clinton as the new Secretary of State. I still find it an interesting decision on the part of Pres Obama to bring Clinton into his inner circle after he ran on a campaign of change. How is a Clinton change? I believe the Clintons are the exact opposite of change. I believe the reason Obama chose Clinton can be seen as the same as running Teddy Roosevelt as the VP back in 1904, but more on that later. I think Clinton will make a fine Secretary of State. She is not a person I would want to make upset. I believe she is strong and smart. She will hold her ground and stand up to anyone in her way. My only problem with her is that the Secretary of State, except for the President himself, is the face of our nation to outside nations. She will be the one who sits with foreign leaders and makes deals. With Hillary I still have the same questions that I had when she ran for the presidency, I question her character. There are still so many questions about the Clinton presidency and the many scandals they were involved in. I do not question her patriotism, but she seems to lack character. I know people love her, but to me just does not seem sincere, and is just too calculating and power hungry.

As I said, I see her nomination the same way I see Roosevelt’s in 1904. Going into the Spanish American War, President McKinley was against military action, while the outspoken Asst. Secretary of the Navy (Teddy) was very in favor of it. Then during the war, Roosevelt quit his position and raised a Calvary regiment known as the Rough Riders. The Rough Riders became national heroes after their victory on San Juan Hill (was actually Kettle Hill) and their leader Roosevelt left their army as one of the most popular men in the nation. With the war over and a great success, in 1904 McKinley had to run for reelection. His problem was that popularity had fallen, especially after we preformed so well in the war that he was against. Another problem for the Republican party and McKinley was Roosevelt. McKinley and Roosevelt were both Republicans, but had extremely different views of government. Roosevelt was a progressive and so believed in big government, the kind of government that would pass reforms over all aspects of life. With Roosevelt’s popularity, he had a great deal of power and sway over the American people, so much sway that the conservative Republicans feared him. The party needed a way to use Roosevelt’s influence yet at the same time curb his power. Their perfect solution was to make him the VP. Traditionally in this nation, there is no position with so little power or responsibility as the VP. Teddy took the position and the ticket easily won. As expected, he was miserable during his short tenure as the VP. McKinley's campaign manager said of Teddy on the ticket, "Don't any of you realize there's only one life between that madman and the presidency?" Hanna turned out to be prophetic, when McKinley was assasinated while at the worlds fair and Teddy became the next President. So the party hoped to use Teddy, but in the end he got what he wanted.

This seems to be something like what the Democrats are trying with Hillary. Her popularity is still very high and in a way losing only made her stronger. The Clinton name still holds great pull in many circles. Many wanted Clinton to be the VP, but the VP is much stronger now than when Teddy ran, and it would have been difficult for Obama to have Clinton looking over his shoulder. So they needed to do something with her, why not send her on trips around the world. She can be persuasive, but will also be gone. Her appointment will calm her supporters, but will also make her part of the administration. There is some speculation that if Obama is tanking in four years that Clinton might run against him, but if she is part of the administration than her reputation is wrapped up with his. Lets just hope the Obama camp is more successful in their attempt to reign in a rival than the McKinley camp was.

Mitch Albom's Detroit

2009-01-12T12:58:00.000-06:00

Just a quick thought. One of my favorite sports writers is Mitch Albom from the Detroit Free Press. He is someone I look up to, in that I enjoy the way he writes and I actually try to copy this style. He made his name as a sports writer, but he is so much more. He may be more famous now for his non-fiction works, but I like his sports columns because they seem to have a heart. Too few public people today seem to have a heart, their writing is cold. It is easy to find someone sarcastic or clever in their writing, which Albom has, but not enough write with feeling or emotion. I say this because I just read a piece he wrote for SI about his home town of Detroit. It is an excellent example of my respect of Albom and is worth reading. You can get hit here http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/the_bonus/01/07/detroit/index.html

I still think I feel the way I do about the auto bailouts that I wrote about earlier and agree with Romney, but as with most things, it is good to hear both sides of an argument and to get the perspective of those who it will effect the most. Read this story.

City Review-New York City

2009-01-09T09:11:00.001-06:00

Before I continue to write about history, politics, and other topics I want to write one more review, but this time instead of a movie I want to write a review about a place, New York City. Over the weekend I attended a conference of the American Historical Association held in NYC. On a personal note the conference was a disappointment in that the main reason I attended was to interview for teaching jobs, however I did not land even a single interview. There are still many jobs open that did not interview at the AHA, so I am still holding out hope of landing one. On a positive note I did have lots of fun visiting the city. First off it was cold. When I left south Texas it was in the 80s and when I arrived in NYC it was in the 30s with light flurries when I arrived at the hotel. To many this would be a negative, but I miss winter so being able to get my coat out of storage was a treat. Another positive was I got to see a bunch of my old friends that I attended graduate school with. I roomed with Jason and the two of us had great fun staying up late watching football. We said it was like a sleepover; we stayed up all night talking and doing each other’s hair, or would have if I had any. I also hung out with my other Arkansas friends, Julie, Derek, Matt, and Tami and my very good friends from VA Tech, Aaron and Lisa.

We all did plenty of the Tourist things, including hanging out in Time Square. It was very crowded, but kind of what you do when you are in NYC. We visited all the tourists shops like the giant Toys R Us, the M & Ms store, ESPN Zone, Virgin Records, and all the souvenir shops. There were also plenty of street vendors, it was fun to watch them try to sell knock off bags and watches then grab all their blankets full of stuff and take off when the cops came around. My review of Time Square is positive. It is very touristy, cheesy and expensive, but that is what I expected.

Some other spots we visited were the Teddy Roosevelt’s boyhood home. I love Teddy, but unless you just want a picture from the outside it may not be worth going out of your way. We saw several churches that are always worth seeing. The architecture of these cathedral like structures are amazing, and inside they are stunning. We also visited the Empire State Building. I will give that experience a mixed review. You wait in a long long line before you go up, close to two hours. A suggestion for future visitors to NYC is that you can go up to the top of Rockefeller Plaza and see the same view with a very small wait. Yet at the same time I do not regret going. As a historian, visiting the Empire State Building is less about the view at the top as it was seeing this historically important landmark. When it was built it was a marvel of technology and represents the modernity of the 1920s. After all Carry Grant and Deborah Kerr did not meet at the top of the Roc, they met at the Empire State Building.

My favorite spot of the weekend was visiting Ellis Island. For only $12 (very cheap for NYC) you could take a ferry ride to Liberty Island where the Statue of Liberty is and then to Ellis Island. To take a boat past the Statue and land on Ellis Island brought me back in time and gave me the opportunity to experience the view of millions of immigrants and their dream of a better way of life about to come true. Visiting Ellis Island was inspirational and I would recommend it to any visitor. The main building almost had a reverence about it, the same feeling I get when I visit a battlefield or a place like the Vietnam Memorial. When you read the stories of some of the immigrants you understand why. They sacrificed everything they had on a chance of a better life in America. Many families landed on these shores with less than the required $25 (they lied when asked if they had the money and luckily were never checked) they had no possible job possibilities yet (I learned they would be sent back if they already had a job, we were scared of contract workers, people who would be like indentured servants and would drive down wages. So immigrants had to prove they would not be a burden on society, yet could not already have a job lined up). My great grandfather and great grandmother came to America from Germany after WWI. They did not come through Ellis Island, but they would have experienced something similar. This visit brought me closer to them and appreciate what they did.

I cannot go to NYC without seeing a show. On this trip I took my sisters advice and saw the Tony Award winning musical In the Heights. I knew I would like the show, I had seen a few songs, but I was joyfully surprised at how much I enjoyed it. The show was about a neighborhood in Washington Heights (also the subway stop of where my sister lived when she was there) populated by Hispanics from many of the island nations and how in many ways they were being pushed out of their neighborhood. The songs and actors were exceptional and the story touching. One of the story lines dealt with a girl that had made it out and was attending Stanford. But while home she broke the news that she lost her scholarship because it was too hard and she had to work two jobs and could not keep up. It touched me, because I teach at a school full of similar students, first generation Hispanic college students who often have to work long hours. I felt bad for the students who have failed my classes and have told me they were going to lose their scholarships. There are many excellent shows to see when in NYC and this show in not hyped, but if you are visiting consider seeing this show, it is well worth it. One other side note, for a modern Broadway show it is very clean, both in content and language. I would be nervous about taking young kids to many new plays today, but this is one that your kids will enjoy and outside of a very few words the parents can feel good about them watching.

Lastly and most importantly the best part of visiting NYC is the food. As someone who grew up in restaurants and who loves to eat, NYC is a Mecca of different foods. Plus where I live now there is not much of a range of different restaurants. We ate dinner at three different places and I would give each of them an excellent review. All three I should mention were recommendations from sister Tami and her husband Doug; they lived there several years and know all the good spots. I will start with my least favorite (even though I say least, I still would highly recommend it, just the other two were better). We ate at Stardust and had a fun time. This is the most tourist spot of the restaurants and very close to Time Square. It is a basic hamburger joint but what makes it fun is that all the servers sing. Many of the actors on Broadway worked here and it is full of inspiring Broadway stars. This place was more about having fun than the food, which was average, but if you want to have an enjoyable time I would recommend it. On another night I eat at Bombay Express on 9th Street. It is an Indian restaurant. What I love about NYC is all the different types of food. I like Indian and very rarely have a chance to eat it. The menu was quite large, almost too large for someone who does not know what most of it means. Lucky for us I had a great waiter. I told him I like lamb and put myself into his hand and I was not disappointed. My favorite place was Akdeniz (http://www.akdenizturkishusa.com/dinnermenu.htm). This is a Mediterranean and Turkish restaurant. I am a big fan of Lebanese food, and this was one of the best spots I have had in that genre. This is close to Time Square but just off it and not touristy so the prices were very reasonable, they have a three-course meal for $20. I got the Lebni for my appetizer, which is a yogurt dip; then salmon Kebabs for my entrée, they were rolled in grape leaves; finally the chef made us some fresh Turkish cookies for dessert, they were excellent. If you visit NYC, I would highly recommend this spot. One other quick note. I should also mention Juniors Bakery next to the Marriott in Times Square, they have some of the best cheesecake I have every had. When in town it is a must.

As a whole the time was very enjoyable. I would have like some interviews and a job, but I still enjoyed my time. I am grateful to reconnect with old friends that I have not seen in some time. I am appreciative of Jason for hanging with me the whole time, for Derek’s great planning, and my sister’s suggestions. I would never want to live there but NCY is a fun place to visit.

An Unexpected Response

2009-01-06T21:07:00.004-06:00

I want to give a response I received from a letter I wrote a month ago and made it a post. Today an envelope was delivered to my office, inside was a picture and a letter which read:

Dear James:
Thank you for your correspondence and your kind words. I appreciate your taking the time to write.

For nearly 8 years, it had been an honor and a joyous experience to be the President of the greatest country on earth. I will sprint to the finish line in the months ahead with confidence in our purpose and trust in the power of the American spirit. As a nation, we will continue to defend freedom’s cause, build a more prosperous future, and make our society more peaceful and hopeful for every individual.

Laura and I send our best wishes. May God bless you, and may God Bless America.

Sincerely,

George W. Bush

I know our President is unpopular, but I am going to guess that we may come to miss him. He was a good man and for what ever he did or did not do, he kept us safe. It is too early to know his legacy, but at least in my class, it will be of a man who kept his promises even to the destruction of his reputation and I believe that will be his legacy.

Movie Review-Band of Brothers

2008-12-30T18:26:00.000-06:00

I know it seems I have been writing alot about movies but I want to write a review of one of my Christmas presents. My wife surprised me with the HBO mini-series Band of Brothers. I have commented on this movie before in passing but after having just finished then entire series again I just wanted to make a few comments. If you are not familiar with the movie it was taken from a book by the same name and written by the excellent historian Stephen Ambrose. The book and the movie detail Company E (Easy Company) of the 101 Airborne division in WW II as they train, jump out of plains on D-Day, fight the Battle of the Bulge, make their way into Germany, and capture the Eagles nest. As a historian, I believe this is by far the best version of WWII on film. There are many great WWII movies, I could make a list, but none can capture the essence of B of B. The main thing Band of Brothers has over most movies is its length. The movie is almost 12 hours long allowing for excellent character development and detail. Most films only have time to show isolated incidents. Saving Private Ryan gave an excellent portrayal of D-Day, but only had half an hour to do so, B of B has over two hours to cover the same event. Do not let the length of the movie overwhelm you; it is broken down into ten self-contained segments. In our experience the biggest problem is not finishing the 12 hour epic, but instead the difficulty is not putting your life on hold and finishing it all in one day. The first time we watched this we thought it would take several weekends, but instead we made several trips to the video store the same weekend to get more episodes.

The Movie begins almost two years before D-Day. The men of Easy Company had all volunteered for the elite airborne corps. The training was extremely difficult, but as one man said, they volunteered so that they knew that the men fighting on either side were the best. Airborne was a new concept in the warfare. Instead of taking on the enemy head on, the army would have men parachute behind enemy lines, meaning they would be surrounded by the enemy and if the operation failed then they would be trapped. The best example was D-Day. If the Allied troops were not successful in taking Normandy, then all the airborne divisions would be caught behind German lines. With such a difficult task, extended training was necessary and the level of training was brutal. The first episode dealt with Easy’s time both in America and England as they trained to make the jump into France on D-Day. The C.O. of Easy was Herbert Sobel (surprisingly well played by David Schimmer or more famously Ross from NBC’s Friends) Sobel was a tyrant for discipline and training but incompetent in the field. Much of the first episode was Easy’s dealing with Sobel.

Also in the first episode we are introduced to the men of Easy Company. They were a rough bunch of men from all over the US, but as the movie progressed they would form into an elite group of men, and more importantly a family. Because this movie was historically accurate, many of these men would die or have to leave from injury, but many you will come to know and even feel for. The most important character introduced is Lt. Richard Winters played perfectly by Damian Lewis. Lewis is currently playing Cruise on the TV drama Life. I am a big fan of Life, not so much because of the show itself, but because I loved Lewis’s portrayal of Winters so much (I will write a blog about Life in the near future). I do not have the time or space to discuss each man in Easy Company, I would love to do so and they are all deserving, but I will limit myself to two. One is Winters. Winters will find himself Company commander on D-Day after all his superiors were killed. Much of the movie is about Winters and the way he led his men. There is no way you can watch this movie and not have great respect for this man. I love sports but am not one who wants to meet sports stars or celebrities but I think if I was to make a list of the 5 men living today who I would like to shake their hand and talk to for a few minutes, I am sure Dick Winters would be one of them. The other actor who I am now a huge fan of, may surprise some, it still surprises me. It is Donny Wahlburg who plays 1st Seg Carwood Lipton. Yes the same Wahlburg from the New Kids on the Block, but his acting skills are good and the man he portrays is a real hero. One of my favorite episodes was the one that focuses on Lipton while they fought the bloodiest battle in World history, the battle of the Bulge. I do not want to give it away, but the praise he receives from Lt. Spears at the end of the episode is touching.

As I said there are so many other characters I could talk about, but do not have room. This is a touching story about ordinary men who were put into extraordinary situations. They had to deal with all the horrors of war, especially the horror of losing the men that stood next to them, the men that came to be their brothers. The last episode they were listening to a German General talk to his men. He said they formed a bond that could only be forged in Battle. While this must have been true from the Germans, it surly was by the men of Easy Company. By the end you also felt part of them, and felt for them as they suffered loss. They were asked to do things that no one should be asked to do, but they came through every time. These men were and are true heroes. Before and after each episode they would play interviews of some of the real men of Easy. After the last episode one of the men interviewed brought up a letter in which he said that his grandchild asked him if he was a hero in the War, he said no, but that he served in a company of heroes. I would like to second that statement these men were heroes.

This was a violent film and the language can be harsh at times. I had watched it on TV and had not realized how bad the language was at times. But this is still a film that I would recommend to everyone old enough. These men volunteered several years of their lives and at time their very lives to help others. Watching movies like this adds weight to this generations claim as the greatest generation. There are lots of movies about war, but few do as well as B of B. It does not celebrate death and violence as some war movies do, but instead shows the humanity in war. Instead of focusing on the big wigs or famous men like Patton, it focuses on the regular men, one company and their extraordinary true-life deeds. This movie is a must see and after you are done, I think you will agree with me that these men and those serving now deserve a great amount of respect and gratitude from all of us.

Tis the Season to Watch Christmas Movies-Part II

2008-12-15T08:04:00.010-06:00

My wife and I were trying to remember what movies we wanted to get in before Christmas or on Christmas day. You know those movies, ones that you are required to watch before it is officially Christmas. Since I enjoy making lists, I figured this would be a perfect blog, so I decided to write my top ten favorite Christmas movies.

Hope you enjoyed the first installment of my top ten best Christmas movies. Now for my top ten.

5. The Christmas Carol. My favorite version is from 1984 staring George C. Scott. Charles Dickens is a master storyteller and this is one of his most beloved stories. There have been dozens of spin offs of this story, two have made this list, but the original story is still worth watching. It is enjoyable to see Scrooge’s excitement when he realizes he had not missed Christmas and goes about trying to correct all his mistakes in the past.

4. The Christmas Story. I will always remember my entire family (I think around 22 of us) going into a theater one Christmas season to watch this movie. I do not think we knew much about it, but by the time we left the theater Christmas would never be the same again, or I guess anyone’s Christmas. Movies like Christmas Vacation, Scrooged, or Elf are great movies, but this is now a classic on the level of White Christmas or Miracle on 34th Street. I could spend a page writing about all the lines or scenes that have become movie icons at the highest level. I can say things “I double dog dare you” and we all automatically think of a tongue stuck to a pole. Goose for dinner, you’ll shoot your eye out, the lamp, or F-U-D-G-E are just a couple other examples. I love this movie because it depicts such an interesting time. I use this in my class when we discuss the 20s and 30 and the cultural importance of the radio. One an inside joke, one thing I will always remember from the theater is when the bully first showed up and my Uncle Doug shouted its Jared (Jared Patton was his best friend and looked just like him).

3. The Muppets Christmas Carol. This is the last of my Christmas Carol trilogy and my personal favorite, hence the number three ranking. I love the Muppets and I enjoy the Christmas Carol, put them together and you get a fun movie for the entire family. It is the same classic tale, with the same morals and story, but with a funny Muppets twist. It is also a musical and with very memorable songs. There is something about this movie that makes me happy, it must bring back memories of being a kid at Christmas time. And you cannot help but have a good movie when Jacob Marley and his brother are played by the Muppet hecklers.

2. White Christmas. Irving Berlin is an inspirational story. A Russian Jewish immigrant, Berlin had to face the intolerance that came with his religion and immigrant status, yet overcame it all to write some of our most beloved songs including God Bless America. One of his classic films was Holiday Inn where he wrote the song White Christmas. Based on the popularity of this song he wrote an entire movie around it with the same name. I know I keep using the word classic a lot, but I cannot think of a better term, this is such a classic movie, with an amazingly classic cast, Bing Crosby, Danny Kay, and Rosemary Clooney. There are other familiar songs that come from White Christmas other than the title song, Sister, I Wish I Was Back in the Army, and Count Your Blessings. This movie, like so many of the others, has the ability to make you feel good. It does not matter the mood you are in when the start it, you will be joyful when it is over.

1. Mr. Kruger’s Christmas. This movie is one of the reasons I love Jimmy Stewart. I could make an entire blog about Stewart movies, but he once said that this was one of his favorites because he was able to direct the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. This is the movie I like to watch on Christmas Eve. The first nine movies on this list are all great to bring in the spirit of the season, but only this one reminds us the true reason we have this holiday. This was an LDS production and directed by the Oscar award winning Keith Merrill (his daughter was the little girl in the film and I had a crush on her when I was little). This is about a building custodian who had to spend another Christmas alone. During the story he would daydream and put himself into situations, one of which was conducting the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. There are some funny parts, but the most touching was when he imagined he was in the stables when Christ was born. His love for the Savior was so strong as he asked for forgiveness and pledged to live his life the way the baby Jesus would want him too. This is a heart touching story that tells the true meaning of Christmas. If you are reading this blog and are not LDS you probably have never heard of his movie, if that is the case I suggest ordering it. You can buy it on Amazon. It is not a message about Mormonism, but about Christ, and can be enjoyed by all Christians during this season. As a child I did not know Stewart was famous, I only knew him as Mr. Kruger and his performance was so excellent that I think much of it was not acting, but he was expressing his actual testimony of Jesus

Well these are my favorite Christmas movies, I would suggest if you have not seen any of them to correct that wrong. There are other favorites that we enjoy, like classic cartoons, but that will be for another time or blog. I hope you enjoy these and if I am missing an important one or have my order wrong, please let me know. I hope you all have a merry Christmas.

Tis the Season to Watch Christmas Movies

2008-12-13T14:30:00.004-06:00

1o. Miracle on 34th street. I mean the 1947 Natalie Woods version not the new one. This is still a classic about a little girl, Natalie Woods, who was raised not to believe in Santa Claus, and in fact not to believe in anything. However with the help of a new neighbor and Mr. Claus himself they help her lean to believe in miracles.

9. It’s a Wonderful Life. This is only one of two of my favorites staring one of my favorite actors Jimmy Stewart. I am sure everyone has seen this movie, but if you have been living in a cave, this is about a man who makes a wish that he was never born. An angle appears to him and shows him what his loved ones lives would be like had he not been born. This is a feel good movie at its best, and like most Frank Capra movies it just makes you feel good.

8. Scrooged. This has become a modern Christmas classic and one of Bill Murray’s best. This is a modern version of Charles Dickens’s novel Christmas Carol. Murray’s character is a TV executive putting on a Christmas show but has no idea of what Christmas is all about. Just as in the original book after being visited by the three ghosts he comes to understand the spirit of the season

7. Elf. This is the most recent of the Christmas classics and stars the very funny Will Ferrell. Ferrell plays a human adopted by elfs who leaves the North Pole to find his family. Like so many Christmas movies, Ferrell must teach his new family what Christmas means, mostly how it is about family. This is a very funny movie that the entire family will enjoy.

6. Christmas Vacation. This movie, like the two above it, is a slapstick funny Christmas movies., This one is a sequel to the Chevy Chase Vacation movies. Not only is the Griswold family back, but so are their hillbilly cousins led by Randy Quaid in his greatest role ever. Clark, Chevy Chase, is the ultimate dysfunctional father who loves his family so much and wants to make a perfect Christmas but seems to fail at every step. Yet as you expect in the end of a Christmas story, everything works out in a funny way.

I hope y ou enjoy watching these films. Check back later for numbers 1 to 5.

The Auto Bailout and Do You Think We Chose the Wrong Man.

2008-12-11T18:57:00.000-06:00

If only the presidential primaries went a month longer, maybe we would be better off. Mitt Romney wrote an op-ed in the New York Times a few weeks ago that I think is dead on (you can read it yourself at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?hp). When we picked the Republican nominee the economy was sound and so McCain won on his national security, then the economy tanked and we nominated a man who had admitted he was week on economic issues. Right now most of you are aware that Congress is debating an economic bailout for the big three automakers. Most thought it would pass with just some minor debate, but luckily some Senators are trying to stop it. I have had a problem with the bail out all along, even though I saw why it was important. But the car bailouts are a bit different. What Romney basically said was that if we bail out the car companies we will just have to do it again in a few years because we are not fixing the problem. The biggest issue is the unions. There are autoworkers that are making over 100,000 because they have put in 30 or more years. I do not begrudge anyone making as much as they can, but many college grads do not make that kind of money. Detroit is even paying people who are not working, because the unions have so much power to demand such conditions. Romney’s point is the car companies cannot succeed with such overhead, and cannot compete with other companies who do not have such strict union demands. Romney wants to help, he is a Michigan man and does not want to see Americans lose jobs, but believes the best way to ultimately help is to allow the companies to declare bankruptcy then help them restructure and bring them back stronger then before. This would include a new deal with the unions. This is fixing the problems not just covering up the stink for a few years. If the automakers do not change how they do business, including their relationship with the unions, they will never progress.

This is the kind of thinking we need in government. Romney was never my first choice, but when he has the guts to say let them fail, I have come over to his side. This is the kind of government we need. This is not the easy way out, but in the long run the better. This type of governing takes courage. I am not saying Obama does not have courage, he may come up with a similar plan, I just fear from his rhetoric that he favors government fixing everything. One of my fears of nominating a Chicago machine politician is already coming true, I am sure that instead of focusing on the bailout right now President-elect Obama is having to wonder how the corruption scandal in Illinois will effect him. Obama may have nothing to do with the governor, but is it not great that that he still has two months before he is already sworn in and there is a possible corruption charge. With Romney’s head for the economy, the Republican party might want to lift him to the forefront and put his ideas out there. The economy may not be much better in four years and he may just be the man we need.

Another BCS Blunder

2008-12-09T13:36:00.000-06:00

I usually write about history and politics, but I want to veer off today and talk about sports, so many of you can stop reading now. I like so many others are disgruntled about events happening in the sports landscape, today I only have room to discuss one. However before I do I want to give a big Yea for my Va Tech Hokies. I knew this would be a difficult season for them; they lost their entire team last year. I had no expectations of the Hokies, but to my surprise they won the ACC championship this past Saturday with a victory over BC. This is their second ACC championship in two years and their third overall. Tech has dominated the ACC since they came into the league a few years ago with three titles. They will be facing Cincinnati on New Years day in the Orange Bowl, GO HOKIES!!!!

Now for my big complaint, the BCS. Once again the idiots in college football have screwed it all up. The national title game will be between Oklahoma and Florida, two great teams that will play an exciting game, but it should not be for the title. Unless you do not pay attention to college football at all, than you know the biggest complaint: how can 1 loss Oklahoma jump ahead of 1 loss Texas when Oklahoma’s 1 loss was to Texas. In the week that Ok jumped Texas, Texas even won its own game, yes granted to an inferior team, but that should not matter. I do not understand why it is more important when you win or lose than it does to who you played. My big issue is that most who support the BCS system (John Saunders) have a good argument: a playoff will take away the importance of the regular season games. It is a good argument; big games would not matter as much if both teams will then make the playoffs anyway. But this year their argument is hurt because the regular season Red River Rivalry in the end did not matter at all, Texas won yet Oklahoma is playing in the big game. This year makes the regular season seem worthless. Take another example, the SEC championship. Alabama was ranked number 1 during most of their undefeated regular season. Their only loss came in the SEC championship game where they lost to Florida. So Alabama and Florida were both 1 loss teams, so how do you decide who should go to the BCS final, Florida because they beat Alabama head on. Why did not the same model apply to Texas?

I understand why it is hard to decide who should play in the championship game, there are no undefeated teams (O yea, Utah and Boise, but they don’t count-more on that later) and a bunch of 1 loss teams (Florida, Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, USC, Penn State, not to mention Ball State). You would think looking at who they lost to would make a difference. Why has powerful USC been out of the question, well they lost to Oregon State. Yet Florida lost to Old Miss and they are playing for the big game. It should matter who you lost to more than when you lost. All the teams are deserving, but Florida lost to Old Miss, USC to Oregon State, Penn State to Iowa, the more deserving teams are Texas who lost to Texas Tech, but if we go by this model then why is not Alabama playing Texas Tech. Bama lost to Florida and Tech to Oklahoma, the two teams that most consider the best in the nation. It seems to me that Bama should have a shot, they were number one for the second half of the year, and lost to the current number 2 team. Why because they lost to Florida head to head, then what about Texas. Can you say double standard? The other reason of coarse is that Bama lost late. There is no way to say that every game in the regular season means more, when later games mean much more than earlier games.

My last issue is Utah and Boise. Both teams went undefeated, yet are being left out. Utah did make a BCS game, but with their performance this year, not to mention the past few years, they deserve a shot at the title. Could they beat either team, probably not, but have they earned the right to try. As for Boise, they were left out completely, even being undefeated, and had one of the best few years in football including one of the best bowl wins in recent history when they beat Oklahoma, proving the little guys can beat the big boys. There is not way the BCS can justify putting a 2 loss Ohio State into the BCS and leaving Boise out, except for money. Colleges who want to be all high and mighty are making football decisions based on money and nothing else.

The only solution to this mess is an 8 game playoff, but not the playoff most are proposing. It should not be the top ranked teams, allowing the BCS conferences to continue to control things. Each of the 6 BCS teams should send their champion. Make the regular season games matter. I agree with pro-BCS people to say that this years Texas Oklahoma game would not have matter as much if both Texas and Oklahoma made the playoff. Only take one team per conference. Leave the last two spots for the next two highest ranked non-BCS conference teams, this year Utah and Boise. What makes March Madness so fun is that George Mason can make it to the final four. Let Utah or Ball State have a chance to prove they can beat someone, they may just surprise everyone. By the way keep the bowls, just make the four BCS bowls the first round of an eight team playoff and the other schools still go to other bowls. Would not this year be so much better if we saw this instead:

Jan 1
Rose: #1. Florida v. #21 Virginia Tech (go Hokies)
Orange: #6 Penn State V. #7 Utah
Sugar: #5 USC v. #9 Boise State
Fiesta: ##3 Texas (they should be going) v. #12 Cincinnati

Jan 8: Semi-final game

Jan 15: National Championship
Hokies Win!!!!
I can dream.

OUR TRIP TO ORLANDO AND WHAT MARX WOULD HAVE TO SAY

2008-12-02T09:58:00.002-06:00

We had the opportunity this past week to be the guests of my in-laws at Orlando (thank you again Steve and Sharon). We had a very enjoyable time. It took two long days to make the drive, but we drove along the gulf coast which I had never seen before so it made it enjoyable. We took part in several activities. On Sunday we ate at Medieval Times and enjoyed the food and the show. The kids loved cheering on their Knight and at the end Savannah even got to keep the ribbon presented to her by the Blue Knight. On Monday we visited Disney’s Animal Kingdom, and the Magic Kingdom. The Kids agreed their favorite part was the Lion King show and Savannah got to have a meet and greet with the princesses (she was in heaven). We were out to midnight and so the next day we were so tired that we took a day off. We did take a boat ride on an air boat in a semi-swampy area. This was one of my highlights, I have never been on an airboat before, but now I want one. We did see a couple gators; they were small, but still fun to see in the wild. On Wed we went to Epcot and Disney’s Hollywood studios. I am not a big fan of rides (I get very sick) so I enjoy Epcot where we can walk around the different nations and eat good food. The kids and I left early to get a head start on the Hollywood studios were we saw Beauty and the Beast and the Indiana Jones show, both of which were favorites of the kids. Jake also enjoyed Star tours. We were then joined by the rest of the family for their night show called Fantasmic. Outside of getting a bit wet it was quite a performance. Thursday again we took the day off to relax and enjoy Thanksgiving. We did have an epic game of mini-golf, I won the first 18, but was crushed by Steve on the back 18 where he had several holes in one and began the course with a seven. Finally on Friday we went to Universal Studios. Jake said by far his favorite ride of the week was the Simpson’s ride (Jake has begun to love watching the Simpsons, I knew he would have good taste). The kids also enjoyed the Sinbad show and the ET ride. Once again thank you to the Edwards for giving us such an enjoyable week.

My review of the parks is of course positive. But I want to give extra praise to Disney World and one negative remark about Universal Studios. When you go to Disney you expect to wait in long lines, it is very popular after all. But Disney has what is called fast pass. The rides with the longest lines you can get a fast pass that tells you when to come back and skip most of the line. This allows you to enjoy other things at the part and spend all your time in line. You can only have one fast pass at a time, so once you ride the ride you can go get the next one. However at Universal they have a different version of the fast pass. If you want to double the price of you ticket you can buy the fast pass for all rides. This is why I joked about Lenin, I see Universal as class warfare at its best. Every time you wanted to ride a ride there were two lines, the haves and the have nots. And not being in the fast lane you felt like a second class citizen as they would fill up the rides with everyone from the fast lanes. I began to feel annoyed as I waited in the ET line for over an hour watching the bikes fill up with the elite while us peasants sat and watched. I never felt the same way at Disney, even though when I was in the slow line and people with fast pass got on first. The difference was at Disney I could have gotten a fast pass their, but chose not to. Disney was the great equalizer, while Universal separated everyone in classes like the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Yes I could have bought a fast pass at Universal, but they were not cheap. It already cost a family a fortune to make it to Orlando, but Universal saw another way to squeeze more cash out of hard working families, by making them feel like lesser citizens. Obviously Disney is not perfect, it is not like they are giving away tickets (well maybe on your birthday), but they could have done the same thing, and who knows maybe they will, but for now it is just another reason why Disney is the happiest place on earth.

The Funniest Show No One is Watching

2008-11-21T11:36:00.002-06:00

I just have one question. What is so funny about the Office? I have tried several times to watch it, I know everyone thinks it is the funniest show in TV, but I do not find it funny at all.

On the other hand one show that I do not hear anyone talking about is The Big Bang Theory. In my opinion this is the funniest show right now. I still enjoy How I Met Your Mother, but I find that I can not stop belly laughing at Big Bang. The character of Sheldon played by Jim Parsons is a classic, I wonder who the writer is who is smart enough to write his part. If you have not seen the show, it is about four very intelligent but nerdy guys and their dealings with the normal world. Maybe by admitting how much I like this show I am exposing my own inner nerd, that I try to hide, but I can not help it. I cannot understand why The Office get so much attention, and the Big Bang Theory gets so little. If you have never watched Big Bang, do your self a favor and give it a chance.

A Letter to President Bush

2008-11-14T09:32:00.006-06:00

I have been thinking for a while about writing a post about President Bush, but then I thought I might as well write him a letter. I have no idea if he ever reads any of the letters sent to him, but he has been ripped on for so long, I thought I might as well as try and say something nice. I know he is not popular right now, but for one, I still have some respect for him and for keeping us safe. I thought instead of writing a separate post, I will just post the letter here:

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,
At the conclusion of your tenure in office I want to write to express my appreciation for the work you have done in the service of our nation. I know these last few years have been trying ones, but you handled a difficult situation with the dignity and grace that your office deserves. I am an American history professor and as such I believe one day history will tell a different story about the presidency of George W. Bush, one much different than what is being told now. After this generation passes away, I believe your administration will be looked upon as one of character and courage. No president since Franklin Roosevelt has been asked to endure so much: the attacks on 9/11, the worst natural disaster in American history, and the collapse of our economy. The difference was that the Americans alive in Roosevelt’s time, rightfully referred to as the “Greatest Generation” rallied around the President, while my own self engrossed generation looked to find fault. Today we praise Roosevelt for steering the ship during harsh waters and my hope and belief is that someday we as a people will recognize your leadership in waters just as rough.

I am not so naïve as to believe things were always perfect, as I am sure you have some regrets. Yet, I respect the fact that you could have improved your approval rating if you were willing to compromise your character, which you never did. I can only guess how you must have felt in the days following 9/11, knowing that so many died on your watch, and I listened as you promised to do everything in your power to make sure it never happened again, and that you would never forget. I believe you lived up to that promise, even to the sacrifice of your popularity. You fought an unpopular war, knowing that it would make us safer. I believe you could have made excuses to pull out of Iraq by now; lesser men may have done so to save their reputation. Yet you always stayed on course. I just wanted you to know that you have my respect and my gratitude. Thank you for keeping us safe and for doing what you thought was right. I know Presidents care about their legacy, and just so you know there will always be at least one college history class where your legacy is protected. I am just beginning my career, but for the last few years I spend my last day of class lecturing on terrorism, I feel it is an appropriate end to the semester, and introduces the students to the crisis we are and will be facing for some time. We end the class with the attacks on 9/11 and then I play for them your speech on September 20, what I believe to be the highlight of your tenure, and then I emphasize the line in which you say, “I will not forget the wound to our country and those who inflicted it. I will not yield, I will not rest, I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people.” I then close the class with, “and I believe he may be the only one in power today who has kept his promise.”

So once again Mr. President, on behalf of myself and my family, I want to thank you for your service, and may God continue to bless you and your family, and may God always bless America.

Revolution Book List

2008-11-11T10:15:00.003-06:00

Today’s blog is a request. I have a friend, who like many of you was inspired during this last election to become more involved and informed about politics. I think that was the best part about the election, to see so many care about the political system. My friend wanted to do some reading about the founding of our country and so has asked for a book list, and I thought it would make a good blog.

The first few books about the revolution can be very tedious, but have the best information. One of the big questions when it comes to the American Revolution is: was it a revolution? The French Revolution came quickly after the American one, and with the French there is no doubt it was a revolution. For one, America’s lack of bloodshed (not armies, but overthrowing and killing the old establishment), have led many to claim a revolution never happened. Some well respected historians have even made these arguments. Charles Beard claimed that the revolution was fought by the wealthy to maintain and improve their wealth. Others such as Arthur Schlesinger have argued that the rich and powerful Americans kicked out the rich and powerful British only to set themselves up in power, and how can that be a revolution?

One of the first to challenge this perspective and one of the books I would suggest is Bernard Bailyn’s The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, 1967. Bailyn claims that the revolution was in how Americans saw themselves. Before the Revolution the colonists were embarrassed by their low status, their lack of social hierarchy and established religion. Yet over time the colonists realized these were positive traits and fought to preserve them.

One of Bailyn’s students wrote the other great piece, Gordon Wood’s The Radicalism of the American Revolution, 1991. Wood said the lack of blood should not stop us from seeing the radicalism of our Revolution. If we focus on the events directly after the revolution then we are missing the larger picture. We need to look down the road a bit. Before the Revolution we were ruled by a King in England and the local aristocracy. We had a large division between rich and poor and an understood social hierarchy. Yet after the Revolution the constitution replaced the King with a republic were we were ruled by our betters (our own elite). However, Wood’s argument is that once freedom was unleashed the framers could not stop democratic forces, and in fact many of them were very upset with the direction of our nation as we entered mass democracy during the Jacksonian period. If we keep going we eventually freed the slaves and gave women the right to vote, all of which would have been radical to the framers.

As for the why we fought the Revolution, my favorite book is Pauline Maier’s, From Resistance to Revolution, 1972. I think she gives the best account of how the colonists went from resisting the British to deciding to revolt. She explains how the colonists really did not want to break from Britain, but were fighting for their rights as Englishmen until they were pushed too far. What most do not understand was that we were into the Revolutionary War about a year before we decided to declare our freedom. Up till then we were still hoping our resistance would bring the British to their senses and give into our demands.

A few other books that are a bit easier to understand and much more interesting to read have come out lately. They deal more with what actually happened and less with theory of why. I loved David McCullough’s John Adams, not only do you learn about a very important man, but he explains the thinking behind the revolution and the Constitution. McCullough also wrote 1776 which I would suggest. Joseph Ellis’s Founding Brothers does an excellent job explaining the relationship between the founders, one that is not always very positive. If you want more from the military side, I would recommend David Hacket Fisher’s Washington’s Crossing or Paul Revere’s Ride. Right now I am reading Ron Chernow’s Alexander Hamilton. I will write a full review of this when I am finished, but so far it gives excellent detail into the Revolution, but more importantly detail into the founding of your government. As I have said in earlier blogs, Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin were the most important for our independence, but Hamilton may be the most influential in the shaping of our government.

If you truly want to understand the Constitution, by far the best reading is The Federalists Papers. These can be difficult to read, but they were written by the men themselves who wrote the Constitution (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay). Just because the framers wrote the Constitution, did not mean that the American people were going to accept this new government (the Articles of Confederation had been our government for a few years and many were happy with it). When it looked as though the Constitution was not going to be approved, Hamilton, along with the other two, wrote a series of pieces published in newspapers that explained why the Constitution was important, spelled out what they were thinking, and answered any question they thought the peoples might have. So I would suggest that anyone who truly wants to understand the Constitution must first read the Constitution, then read the Federalist Papers to get the background as to why they did what they did (you can buy it on Amazon for under $10).

So I hope these books can help your study of the Revolution and its outcome. I am glad to see peoples interest in such important topics. I would love to discuss any of these if you would like to have a virtual book club. I hope this does not sound arrogant, but I would love any other recommendations for blog topics, I find this fun.

Is Racism Over?

2008-11-10T09:32:00.002-06:00

With the election of our new president, I think it is time for an interesting debate: is racism over? I do not mean are there still racists, yes of course there will always be, but can we still call our nation a racist one. The charge of racism has been leveled against the US for years, and has picked up steam over the last eight years. Men like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have made a living calling the US racists. The best example of accusing the US of racism came from hurricane Katrina. I am sure no one has forgotten Kanye West’s statement at an event to raise money, when he said on national TV, “George Bush Hates Black People.” I for one never blamed Bush for Katrina (I truly believe some think he created the storm and sicked it on New Orleans). It was a storm like we have never seen and it caught us unprepared. No other president could have done better. When disasters hit, it is always the poor who get hurt the worst. The ones who could afford it got out early. And much of the poor tend to be minorities, it is just a fact for now. So the question is, if another tragedy occurs over the next four year (and once again it will be the poor that suffer) can be blame the president? Will West show up again and say President Obama hates black people. When the black Americans are upset at their lot in life can they blame “the Man” for keeping them down, even when “the Man” is black? I think this is a discussion we need to have, even though many will be scared to have it. When I asked my classes what they thought (95% of my students are Hispanic) they were mixed and it led to interesting discussions. I do not think men like Jackson and Sharpton will ever stop, if they do they would be obsolete, but what approach will they take? Will they accuse Obama of not being black enough or an Uncle Tom for selling out to “the Man,” oh, but wait, the “the Man” is black. With 75% of Obama’s supporters being white, I think it is time to consider claiming the civil rights movement has achieved its victory, that Dr. King’s dream has come true. Yet I do not believe this debate is over, it is just beginning. So the question is, Is Racism Over? I would love to hear what you have to say.

What Would the Founding Fathers Say about President Obama

2008-11-06T20:18:00.000-06:00

I think if the founding fathers could speak, they would express their shock and disappointment at our new president, and for the most part it would not be because of his race. Yes it is true, the idea of a black man winning the presidency would be shocking to most of the men who wrote the Constitution. Many of the men at the convention were anti-slavery (most notably Alexander Hamilton) but that did not mean that they saw blacks as equal to them. I think this is the most positive aspect of Obama’s win. Two hundred years ago blacks were considered in no way equal to whites, in fact the Constitution only considers a black man 3/5s of a white man when it comes to population to determine how many representatives from each state. Yet now we have a black president, what a great accomplishment.

But even if Obama were white, the most disappointing part of his victory, I believe for the founders, is that Obama is what they would have referred to as a demigod. To understand what I mean you must understand the men who framed the Constitution and why they created what they created. To understand the Constitution, you must understand that the men who made a strong federal government, were scared of a strong federal government, or at least the American people who had to approve of it were scared of a strong central government. America had just fought a war to break away from a strong government that was ordering them around, now the individual states worried that if they created a central government they would just be replacing a British despot with an American one. So as you read the Constitution, it helps to understand it by understanding they were trying to make a government that was strong enough to keep peace and order yet not too strong to take away our rights. This idea is clearly seen in the three bodies that would be elected under the Constitution: The House of Representatives, the Senate, and the President. The founders wanted to make sure that neither of the three were elected by the same group of people, at the same time, or for the same length of time. This would guarantee that the masses did not run the country. Remember we are a republic not a democracy, in fact the framers feared democracy as can be seen in our Constitution. One of the framers, Fisher Ames, once said the biggest problems we face in this nation come from too much democracy.

First they wanted to make sure elected officials were elected at different times. The House of Representative are voted on every two years, the Senate every six, but only 1/3 of the Senators are up at any given election. The reason for this is clear this year. If we had elected all 100 Senators this election, the major issue that would have given them victories would have been the economy. Now say in two years the economy is running great and we have some other pressing issue, our Congress might be full of economists who would not know how to handle the new issue. Secondly with only 1/3 of the Senate seats open, some new political whim would not allow for the entire Senate to be cleared out. Just think if all 100 Senators were up this year, there may by 95 Democrats and only 5 Republicans. Even if you are a Democrat I hope you see how a government made up of all Democrats can be dangerous. The founders understood this and did not want every new fad (ideology or person) that came along right before the election to decide the fate of our nation.

Secondly the framers wanted to make sure all three were elected for different lengths. As we have already seen the House is elected for two years, the Senate for six and the president for four. Again this was done to guarantee fads would not ruin the nation. They also made sure the one group with the closet tie to the masses were only in for two years, and this is where a demigod come into play. The framers feared that if the people had too much power they would vote in a person solely on this appeal to masses, which appeal tended to be for all the wrong reason. They wanted to guarantee that someone would not rise up quickly from no where without any experience and capture the peoples attention simply for reasons of his charisma, speaking ability, or promises to the people. So if this did happen they would be out in two years.

Lastly, and most important for his argument, is that all three were elected by different groups. To guarantee the masses did not have too much power the framers set up a system where the people only voted for one of the three, the House of Representatives. This was the only group under the original Constitution where the people had a direct vote. According to the Constitution, Senators were elected originally by the state legislatures. In other words, the people elected legislators to their state government and those legislators voted for the Senators to the federal government. The 17th Amendment in 1913 changed this to our current system of direct election of Senators. As most know after an election, the people themselves do not vote for the president, but instead the Electoral College makes the decision. So each state is assigned a certain number of electors whose job it is to vote for the president (just for information, the number of electors is decided by the states number of congressman plus the number of Senators). The point of the Electoral College was not to confuse us today, but was created to take away the vote from the masses in order to avoid a demigod from winning the highest office. They feared someone like Obama who was unheard of two years ago by most people and that over night could rise to fame with no experience and win the presidency based on nothing but popularity and not because he was the best for the nation. I am not suggesting Obama will be bad for the nation, lets see what he can do, but I am suggesting his rise and popularity is for all the wrong reasons. Most still do not know exactly what he stands for, or even his background. He has made a lot of promises without explaining how he is going to accomplish anything, which would lead the framers to see that he cared more about winning the election and less about the nation.

So I believe that the framers would not approve of Obama as president, which does not mean he should not be the president. They would not approve of a black man, which now should not bother us. As for him being a demigod, that is a personal choice. He will not be the first demigod to be elected. Andrew Jackson was the first to base his presidency not on issues but solely on personality. Jackson was a good president, but had to go against much of what he believed in when he ran. He ran as a small government Republican but ended up making the power of the president stronger than any president to that point. I believe Obama will have to follow suit in order to be successful. Like Jackson, to protect our nation and keep us together, he will have to do things that are unpopular. And this is the problem of a demigod, when you get all your support from being popular, doing unpopular things will be hard. Yet having our nation hurt during his watch will not help his political success in four years either. It looks like the founders not wanting a demigod might have been a smart ideology; we need a leader who will make tough decisions, even when those decisions are unpopular. Lets just pray Obama can live up to the office and care more about nation than his ratings.

Depressing Night

2008-11-05T10:40:00.001-06:00

I have to say I was much more depressed last night than I thought I would be as the returns came in. I thought I was better prepared for the inevitable, knowing months ago that a Republican victory was slim, no matter who ran. History is very clear that when a president is as unpopular as President Bush, the other party can coast into the White House. My only hope was that the Democrats would do something stupid and run someone so bad that they could not possibly win. I guess I got my hopes up that the Democrats seemed to do just that, for surely Americans were smart enough to realize the emperor was not wearing any clothes, but I guess I was wrong. As I spoke to my classes I realized at least the young were hypnotized by his speaking and cited that as the major reason they supported him. Imagine that, vote for a man because he sounds good. He always said the right thing, even if his record did not back his words. Well there is nothing that can be done about it now. I just hope the old adage is not true: be care what you wish for, you just might get it.

The funny part about my depression is that I would have been sad with a McCain victory, and in the long run I have tried to convince myself a McCain victory would be even worse. I disagree with McCain in so many areas, and do not believe he has the answers to change things, so a McCain victory would just be more grounds for criticism against Republicans. At least now, if any problems happen, and they will happen, then the Democrats will have to take responsibility for it (more on this in a bit). Now the Democrats have to put up or shut up, and if they fail, than a better candidate can take over in four years.

Now all we can do is wait. I do want to remain positive, lets see what Obama can do. If he turns out to be an effective president then great, lets bring him back for four more years. I am just struggling with my optimism. One of the reasons I have doubts comes from his acceptance speech. Last night, or more like this morning, as he addressed the crowd he already began to make excuses as to why he will not make all the changes he promised. He has begun to run for reelection telling his supporters that it may take more than one term to do all that he has promised and that they should be patient if not everything works out. I just wonder how long he will continue to use Bush as his scapegoat. He is now the president, and will quickly have to learn that it is on his shoulders. He is the president and the Congress is controlled by the Democrats, so if things go wrong, he is the only one to blame. Lets see if he is more like Truman who had a sign on his desk that read “The Buck Stops Here” and lived up to it, or will be more like Clinton who blamed everyone else (even a great right wing conspiracy) for everything bad in his administration, I pray for the former.

I believe in this country, and I still believe in the American people. I know it will take more than one man or even one president to really hurt us. As a strong Christian, I believe God had a hand in creating this nation and that he watches over us today. As long as at least some Americans still believe we are one nation under God, and still strive to follow his commandments, than this nation will continue to be strong. I still have strong fears about attack from outside forces and believe our enemies will challenge this new young president. I have already written a comparison between Obama and JFK challenges here, so will not dwell on them again. I just pray that God will give Obama wisdom and strength, and that God will continue to bless and protect us.

Top Five Most Important Elections--#1, 1800

2008-11-03T18:54:00.002-06:00

#1. 1800 Election, Thomas Jefferson (R) v. Aaron Burr (R) v. John Adams (Federalists) v. John Jay (Federalists) v. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (Federalists).

I believe the 1800 election easily has the title of our most important election. First to understand why there were so many men running you must know that before the passage of the 12th Amendment to the Constitution in 1804, the president and VP did not run on the same ticket as they do today with McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden. The founders detested the ideas of factions (parties) and so did not for see the need for a party ticket. The way it worked was each member of the Electoral College cast two votes, the man with the most votes became president and the second most votes was VP. You can imagine why this had to change or today we would have President Bush and Vice-President Kerry. However as early as 1796, the first year Washington did not run, parties had developed and so both parties ran two men hoping their first choice would win and their second choice was VP.

In 1800 the incumbent president was John Adams who was finishing his first term and planned on a second. Adams was not an entirely popular or effective president leaving him on an uphill battle, especially because he was feuding with Alexander Hamilton who controlled the Federalists party to which Adams belonged. With Adams not falling in line with Hamilton’s views, Hamilton had decided to block Adams from a second term and so encouraged Cotesworth to also run. In 1800 there were two clear-cut distinct choices to pick from, represented in the Federalists and the Republicans (note, this is a different Republican party than the one formed in 1854 and is still around today). The difference was what course should the young nation take to guarantee its survival and make us great. Jefferson, who embodies the Republican point of view, envisioned a nation of small yeoman farmers, with everyone owning their own small farm. He believed this was the only way to make us great. You must understand that freedom today means something different today than in 1800. The founders put property restrictions on who was free enough to vote. This was before the secret ballot, and so when it came to voting, if your relied on anyone else for income than you may be forced to vote the way they wanted. The only way to be truly free and to care enough about the future of this nation was to own your own means of production (farm, shop, tavern). This is how we justified not allowing women, slaves, or children to vote, they were not smart enough or in control enough to make these important decisions on their own. Lastly Jefferson and the Republicans believe the best kind of government was the kind that did very little and left the real power to the states.

The leader of the Federalists, Hamilton, had a completely different point of view. Hamilton believed that in order to become a great nation, we needed to be more like the nation we just broke from, England. And what made England great was its order and industry. Hamilton wanted us to become self-sufficient and in order to do that we needed to industrialize. He pushed for high tariffs to help support American industry and he ultimately wanted a large strong federal government that could support our industrial power and to keep law and order. He also wanted to tie the wealthy to the government. This is an aspect of government we all hate, yet if smart realize its importance. In 1800 the US was still an experiment, no one knew if we would survive another ten years. Hamilton believed that if you made the wealthy dependent on the survival of the nation they would do all in their power (money, influence) to keep it going. If the masses wanted the government to survive and yet the rich did not, what chance would we have had? The masses are important, but the wealthy have the power. This is why today both parties claim to be the party of Jefferson, but no one wants to be the party of Hamilton (he was not a big fan of democracy). Jefferson feared Hamilton’s view of industrialization, because under his plan we would have a nation of owners of production and a majority of workers who worked in factories and had no freedom. What makes this election so interesting is unlike today; both parties honestly thought if the other won, the nation would be over. Today we may not like the other party and say brash statements to how the other guy will ruin this nation, but in the end after all the threats, no one is really going to move to Canada. We know the nation will continue to function. Back then, they did not have 200 years of experience under them, they really did not know we would last this long.

So the first reason this is the most important election is that the very nature of what we will become and our survival was at stake, which made it a very vicious campaign. Adams and Jefferson did not hold back, even though Jefferson himself got pretty dirty Adams stayed out of it, but his supporters did not. Interesting enough, back in the Revolutionary War, these two were very close friends, and both essential to our freedom. The problem with our revolution was that the founders did not decided on what kind of nation we would become after the revolution, before we decided to revolt. So in the process of nation building, Jefferson and Adams had strong disagreements leading these once great friends to become bitter rivals.

On the day of the election, things did not turn out the way everyone was hoping. With the problems in the Federalists party, the Republicans easily won the day. However when the votes were counted Jefferson and Burr were tied with both having 73. Who ever was supposed to not vote for Burr once making sure Jefferson would win, must have forgotten, leaving the Republicans in a awkward situation. Everyone knew what was supposed to happen, Jefferson led the party and Burr was supposed to step aside. Yet I guess Burr must have decided he liked the sound of President Burr and remained in the race. With a tie in the Electoral College, the decision was up to the lame duck congress that was still controlled by the Federalists. Once left to the Congress the Federalists realized they could win some sort of victory by at least blocking Jefferson, their principle rival, from the Presidency. The states voted as a block, so the Federalists states decided to vote for Burr while the Republicans voted for their champion, Jefferson. However, in order to elect the next president a majority must be reached, so nine states must approve and for the first 35 ballots case, neither side could achieve a majority.

The man responsible for breaking the stalemate was Hamilton. As much as Hamilton disagreed with Jefferson, he believed he was at least honorable. Burr was a different story. Burr and Hamilton were both from New York, and over the years had developed into a bitter ugly feud. Hamilton thought Jefferson truly wanted to help the nation, but was misdirected, where as Burr was a power hungry man who would destroy the country. With the deadlock, Hamilton began pushing for his party to support Jefferson. On the 36th ballot, two federalists states changed to Jefferson. Jefferson would become the 3rd president. The influence of Hamilton to help Jefferson win is one of the issues that led to the duel between Hamilton and Burr causing Hamilton’s death.

So Hamilton helped Jefferson to win, the man who disagree with all Hamilton’s views of the course of the nation. Yet one thing that is most fascinating is that in the end Hamilton won. Jefferson may have won the presidency, but we quickly turned into one of world’s leading industrial powers. We all praise Jefferson, but Hamilton may be the most influential man when it comes to our country. Adams and Jefferson were the most important to us become a free nation, but Hamilton decided what kind of nation we would be.

However, none of this is the major reason why the election of 1800 is the most important. What clearly set this at number one is that for the first 12 years of our government the Federalists were in change under Washington and Adams. Then in 1800 we switched control of the government, and what is most important is nobody died (well maybe Hamilton). I would argue that even in the world today, there are few times that nations switch powers peacefully. Take much of the third world, and for one group to take over power it requires revolutions, chaos, and bloodshed. In 1800, I would argue the US was the only place in the world where there could be a peaceful change of power. In a world full of Kings and Queens, even in England, bloodshed was required to overthrow the ruler and bring in a new one. And in only a few years after the election of 1800, France would switch powers several times beginning with the French Revolution, and every time a new group took over in France, many people would die. Yet in America, when Jefferson won and the Federalists lost, Adams and the Federalists did not raise and army to keep control, they peacefully turned over power. Yes, they thought the Republicans would destroy everything the revolution created; yet they did not stop it. Every four years we as Americans need to understand just how impressive this is. We not only have the right to pick our leaders, we constantly have a peaceful transition between the two sides. On Nov 4 we may have a Democrat come to power, and once again it will be peaceful. As you watch the returns come in, take a moment to realize how exceptional we are to live in such a great nation. The precedent set by our leaders in 1800 of not resisting the change of power, is my reason the election of 1800 is the most important in our history.

Top Five Most Important Elections--#2, 1860

2008-11-02T19:41:00.001-06:00

1860 Election. Abraham Lincoln (R) v. John C. Breckinridge (D) v. Stephen Douglas (D) v. John Bell (Constitutionalists Unionists).

The 1860 election is, I believe, the second most important election, even though it happens to be my favorite. The first two chapters of my book (hopefully out next year) deal with this election. In 1860 the incumbent president was James Buchanan (D), but he had no plans of running for a second term. One thing that sets this election apart from most is that there were four viable candidates running. Over the previous 40 years before this election, politically the country was divided between Democrats and Whigs. However in the ten years leading up to 1860 these two parties were breaking down leading to political chaos. By 1860 the Whig party had fallen away and the Democratic party had split into southern and northern wings over the issue of slavery. In 1854 a new party was created, the Republicans, which differed from any other political party before this time in that its membership was comprised solely from the north. The major plank in their platform was to stop the expansion of slavery.

So in 1860 the Northern Democrats ran Stephen Douglas. His major issue was called popular sovereignty, or in other words he believed that new states themselves could choose whether they wanted to enter the Union as free states or slave states. The southern Democrats disagreed with popular sovereignty, claiming it went against their constitutional right to private property and that the Supreme Court had ruled in Dred Scott that slave owners could bring their slaves into any state. The Southern Democrat’s main issue was that they wanted a Constitutional guarantee for slavery. The New Republican party ran Abraham Lincoln and pushed to keep slavery out of all new states. Most Republicans did not want to outlaw slavery everywhere, just not allow it to spread. Normally with the Republicans only supported in the north and the Democrats in both north and south, the Republicans would not stand a chance. However the fear was that with the Democratic party split, it gave the Republicans a good chance for victory. Since there was no way of bringing the two wings of the Democrats together and since the old southern Whigs could not bring themselves to either support the Democrats or Republicans they formed a new party called the Constitutional Unionists. They had one major plank on their platform: A Lincoln victory would lead to Civil War, so everyone should vote for John Bell and the Constitutional Unionists as the compromise candidate and keep the peace.

On the day of the election Lincoln won 18 states including every northern state where the majority of the population lived giving him a surprising 118 electoral votes. Breckinridge came in second capturing all the lower south and Maryland but only giving him 11 states and 72 Electoral College votes. Bell came in third after winning the border states of VA, TN, and KN. Douglas was last with only Missouri.

What makes the 1860 election the second most important was the consequences of Lincoln’s victory. Before the election the southern states had threatened that a Lincoln victory would mean the end of the Union and the creation of separate southern nation. Since the creation of the US the two sides had been at odds over the issue of slavery, however in the years after the Mexican war and addition of new territory preparing to become new states, the differences between the two sections had come to an impasse. Events such as Bleeding Kansas, Dred Scott, and John Brown’s raid had gotten each side so worked up that they had convinced themselves that they could no longer live together. Lincoln and the Republican had had become a particular thorn to the South. In 1858 Lincoln gave his “House Divided Speech” in which he said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided.” The South took this speech to mean that if elected, Lincoln would try to free the slaves. The other problem the South had with the Republican party was that it did not represent the views of the south, in fact Lincoln had not even been on most ballots in the South, so if he won, the South could expect him to only support wishes from the North. So the election of Lincoln was the final insult to the south and beginning with South Carolina seven southern states broke from the Union and created the Confederate States of America. A few months later in April of 1861 Lincoln order the Union to Fort Sumter, located in Charleston harbor, to be re-supplied. Before the Fort could be replenished, the new CSA opened fire on Sumter beginning the American Civil War. After Lincoln called for 75.000 volunteers to put down the rebellion, the states of VA, TN, AR, and NC all broke their ties with the Union and joined the Confederacy.

1860 is the second most important election, in that it led to America’s most tragic and bloody war. Because of this political crisis, 600,000 Americans lost their lives. What made it so tragic was both sides were fighting for freedom.

Top Five Most Important Elections--#3, 1896

2008-10-31T21:08:00.001-05:00

3. 1896 Election. William McKinley (R) v. William Jennings Bryan (D)

In my opinion the 1896 election is the third most important election. In 1896 Grover Cleveland was the incumbent president finishing his second term. McKinley would run on the Republican ticket and was expected to win considering the Republicans had been in power since 1860 with one exception. Like most of his predecessors, McKinley was a Civil War veteran, which was an important aspect in winning elections in the period after the Civil War known politically as the Gilded Age. More importantly for this story, McKinley was an old school Gilded Age politician. It is difficult to see many differences between the Republicans and Democrats in the Gilded Age, mainly because neither party did much. The idea of government actually helping the people was a foreign concept; Gilded Age politicians would be shocked and confused to hear about our recent economic bailout. The biggest difference between the two parties was Republicans believed in a high tariff, while Democrats wanted to keep the tariff low. I challenge anyone today to tell me what the current tariff rate is, but in 1896 bringing up the tariff was bound to get you into a fight. For those who may not know, tariffs are taxes placed on imported goods. One benefit is to make money, but the more important reason is to support American business. If we tax items that America also makes it forces foreign competitors to charge more for their goods and we can under sell them. The other minor difference was that the Republicans believed in big government (just the opposite from today), but high tariffs were about as big as they got. The only other thing the federal did to help people was sell cheap land and give Union soldiers pensions. Most of the support for the Republicans came from New England and mostly Protestants who wanted moral reform (anti-drinking leagues). The Democratic party wanted a government that did nothing, hence low tariffs. White Southerners who wanted the federal government to leave them alone so they could continue to build on white supremacy mostly supported them. In the North their support came from catholic immigrants who did not think the government should have a say in their personal lives, but insisted that was the job of the church. So voters in the Gilded Age did have a choice in parties, if not in major ideology.

All that began to change in the 1890s when farmers (who made up the majority of the population) came to the realization that neither party cared much about their welfare. In states like Kansas, Texas, and Nebraska farmers began to come together to create a third party to assist the plight of farmers known as the Populists party. The Populists party is by far the most powerful third party in American history; they elected US Senators and Governors. What makes the Populists stand out from the other mainstream parties was that they believed that the government had a responsibility to help them, they would cheer the economic bailout. They wanted the government to give them low interests loans, build them warehouses to store their crops, and even tell railroads how much they could charge to ship crops. The Populists number one issue was called free silver. We were still on the gold standard in the 1890s, and the Populists were hopeful to add silver to the currency to allow for more money into the system to cause inflation which would weaken the dollar and make it easier for debt ridden farmers to pay back their loans. Ideas like the government telling private business how much to charge and government interfering with the economy were extremely radical ideas, but from their growth in such a short time, must have been appealing.

In 1892 the Populists ran their first presidential candidate, James Weaver. He came in third place but did carry a respectable five states, which is good for a first time party. If nothing else they made the other parties take notice. Over the next 4 years the party continued to grow and put their trust behind their newly appointed leader: William Jennings Bryant. Bryant was the ultimate politician. He was an extremely capable leader and was dripping with charisma, kind of cross between Clinton, Kennedy, and Lincoln when it came to giving speeches.

In 1896 the Democrats were at a loss. In every election they had been close to victory but would always fall a bit short. The Democratic leaders decided they needed to do something radical to win. They realized if they could capture the Populist voters they could win, but in order to win over Populists they had to make drastic changes to their party beliefs. Remember Democrats were the party of small government, but in 1896 they ran a platform of government involvement. To guarantee that Populists took them seriously, they asked William Jennings Bryan to run on their ticket, to which he agreed. Following Bryan’s beliefs, the principle issue for the Democrats in the election was free silver. The reason why this is the third most important election is that for the first time a major party would decide it had a responsibility to help the American people, and we have never looked back. The Democrats would lose this election, but their Populists influence will not wear down. In fact even the Republicans would be forced to move over closer to the Democratic point of view, and just a few years later the Republicans would elect Teddy Roosevelt in 1804 who will do more to increase the size and power of government more than any other president.

To finish this election story, the 1896 race was between three parties but only two men. The Republicans ran McKinley, the Democrats ran Bryan, and not to be left out the Populists also ran Bryan but with a different VP. Bryan will do a good job at winning over some Populists to the Democratic party and will win the rural vote but could never make head way into the massive northern industrial cities where they saw him as a back water hick with too much of a religion attitude (catholic immigrants in the cities, though religion, still did not want the government meddling with morality). As for the Populists party, this was their last election, as they will fuse with the Democrats changing the latter forever. As for Bryan he will run for president two more times, but is probably most well known as the guest prosecuting attorney for the Scopes trial that convicted John Scopes for teaching evolution in the 1920s. He will die a couple days after the trial. McKinley will win a second term only to be assassinated by anarchists at the Buffalo Worlds Fair in 1901.

Though McKinley wins the election and quickly passes the Gold Standard Act keeping American on the Gold Standard, the real importance of this election is the change from Government believing it should do the very minimum to the government believing today it should be involved in every aspect of our lives.

Top Five Most Important Elections--#4, 1968

2008-10-30T19:03:00.004-05:00

4. 1968 Election. Hubert Humphrey (D) v. Richard Nixon (R)

In the 1968 election Johnson was the incumbent president, and had only served one term, but by 1968 Johnson was also a very unpopular president and had decided not to seek reelection. For those not alive in 1968 it would be like if Bush could run for another term. With his unpopularity over the war, there would be no way he would stand a chance of winning. The same thing was happening with Johnson and the Vietnam War. The Democratic primary came down to three candidates, Humphrey, Eugene McCarthy, and Robert Kennedy. One thing that makes this an important election was that McCarthy and Kennedy represented what is known as the New Left. 1968 is when the modern Democratic party was created from a coalition of liberals, minorities, women’s rights activists, and in 1968 the student movement. The hopes and dreams of the new left were tied to McCarthy and Kennedy. They were not only going to take us out of Vietnam, but launch us into a new world order of liberal reform. Unfortunately for the New Left, right after Kennedy gave a speech in California he was shot and killed. With the death of Kennedy, McCarthy all but stopped campaigning allowing for the more traditional Democrat, Humphrey, to capture the party. Knowing that Humphrey was going to be given the Democratic nomination, thousands of disgruntled students came to Chicago to protest at the Democratic national convention. What occurred in Chicago was a violent mob scene as police clashed with the protestors. All the events were captured on TV, leaving an ugly image for most Americans.

The events in Chicago played right into the hands of the Republican nominee. One of the elements of Nixon’s campaign was having a plan to get out of Vietnam with honor. His plan was similar to plans today of leaving Iraq, turning over control of the safety of Vietnam to the Vietnamese. Even more importantly he ran on a platform of law and order. By 1968 many Americans had become disenchanted with the protests, drugs, sex, hippies, and basic lack of morals and lawlessness. Nixon played up people’s fears and promised to crack down and reestablish morality (I hope you see the humor in this). Just like the new Democratic party, 1968 marked the beginning of the new Republican party. Nixon built a coalition of conservative thinkers, blue-collar workers who were tired of liberal issues like affirmative action, and what then was called the silent majority (today we are calling these people soccer moms and NASCAR dads). The idea behind the silent majority is that these are regular folks who don’t protest, or shout out their support, but they show up and vote. I had a student in 2004 ask how Bush won a second term where all she heard on TV was that everyone hated him. My answer to her was the silent majority.

1968 was the first election with our current constituted parties, in other words the Democratic and Republican parties we know today. Bush, and McCain if he wins, both owe Nixon thanks for putting together a strong party. Nixon’s win and new Republican coalition will once again reverse the political trend. Since 1932 the Democrats had controlled the White House with only one Republican president in the 64 years of Democratic control. But starting in 1968 the Republicans would reclaim the top prize and dominate with only 2 Democratic presidents for the next 44 years. I believe what makes this years election is we might be seeing the next shift. Johnson’s unpopularity and the problems with the Vietnam war helped give power to the Republicans, we will see if the war in Iraq can do the same for the Democrats.

One of the major shifts that occurred in 1968 was a demographic shift. Since the Civil War all southern states always voted Democratic, giving us the term the Solid South. The major reason for white southerners voting Democratic was that the party represented white supremacy (blacks were not voting in the south). 1948 was the first year that any southern state voted against the Democrats. Southerners upset that their party seemed to be moving away from their long time belief of white supremacy created a new party called the Dixiecrats that would continue to support their beliefs. But with the failure of the Dixiecrats, in 1952 southerners could not bring themselves to vote Republican, so went back to their party and voted Democratic. Then in 1964 southerners broke rank again and voted for Goldwater after Kennedy pushed for civil rights laws. 1968 was the first year that no southern state, except Texas, voted for the Democratic party (the deep south voted for George Wallace). Then beginning after 1968 the south would return to the solid south, just this time voting Republican. The only times that any southern state would vote Democratic again was for Carter and Clinton, both southern governors.

To me 1968 is the 4th most important election because it was the first election with our current Republican and Democratic elections. It marked a major shift in ideology in both parties. It redrew the modern demographics with the south now voting for the Republican party. Lastly it marked the end of Democratic control and swung the power back to the Republicans until today.

Top Five Most Important Elections-#5, 1932

2008-10-29T22:09:00.002-05:00

I think the upcoming election may become one of the most important elections in American history, and no matter what it will be historical. So with only five days until the election I thought I would do a top five count down of the most important elections we have had so far. So starting today and for the next 5 days I will highlight the top five elections

5. 1932 Election-Herbert Hoover (R) v. Franklin D. Roosevelt (D). In 1932 Hoover was the incumbent president, but more importantly America was in the grips of the Great Depression. This is a time when 25% of American families were without a wage earner and those who were employed were limited in hours and pay. Families struggled more that ever before for basic securities like food and shelter and families had to come together and share one house or apartment with several other families. During this time, some looked to the government for help, but found nothing. For one, unlike today, most never expected the Government to help. Why should it when it never had before. Hoover has taken some undue criticism for his approach to solving the economic issue. Hoover, based on advice from all his economic advisors, did nothing. Hoover’s advisors believed the best way to help the economy was to allow the free market system to fix the problems. This had been sound economic policy since Adam Smith first wrote about the invisible hand’s ability to solve market issues. The idea was that the business cycle was a pattern of peeks and valleys, with sometimes the valleys being very low. However, the business cycle had always rallied and fixed its own problems . What Hoover’s advisors told the president was that if the government inserted itself into the market they might break it or make it worse. In many ways this is similar to the Republican approach to today’s crisis. Some conservative thinkers have disagreed with the bailout, stating that market forces should be allowed to work without government interference. So I do not blame Hoover for the depression, he honestly did what he thought was best, yet at the same time he did not do things to help himself. Hoover made statements like, “nobody is actually starving,” and our hobos have never been better off. The problem was people were actually starving. Hoover just kept asking people to be patient and just around the corner things would get better, yet they never seemed to.

But in 1932 Roosevelt ran for the presidency promising that the government would do everything in its power to fix the problem. Like Obama, Roosevelt ran on a platform of hope, and hope was something the nation desperately needed by 1932. Between 1860 and 1932 the Republicans dominated the White House with only two Democratic presidents over the 72 years. This 1932 election and Roosevelt’s promise of a “New Deal” was the turning point that would allow the Democrats to began their long run of presidential control that would last until 1968 with only one Republican president during the 36 years. With Roosevelt’s popularity, many people that had traditionally voted Republican had switched their votes during FDR’s four terms as president, but later many would switch back. The most important switch in 1931 was a racial one. Beginning with the 15th Amendment when blacks were given the right to vote, blacks voted something like 95% for the Republican party, after all it was the party of Lincoln. But beginning in 1932 black Americans for the first time began voting Democratic and would never again abandon the party. FDR was not a champion of civil rights, but he did believe in helping the poor, and blacks were some of the poorest people in the nation (as a side note Mrs. Roosevelt was a supporter of civil rights and did help in her husbands popularity amongst black voters). The capturing of the minority vote has become a staple in the Democratic party and was one of the reasons for their long run beginning in 1932, and will be a major reason for Obama winning if he does next week.

FDR will go on to change politics forever; our recent bailout can be traced to FDR’s influence. Roosevelt will build up the size and power of the federal government and will create a government that would put thousands of people to work on government programs, as well as create systems like social security that was meant as a government cradle to the grave protection. Our modern ideas of a welfare state can trace back to FDR’s influence. So with the change from Republican to Democratic control, with the switch of black voters to the Democratic party, and change from Laissez Faire government to a welfare state are all the reasons the 1932 is the 5th most important election in American history.

Gas Prices and the benifits of living here

2008-10-27T10:03:00.003-05:00

It has come to my attention this past week that we have one great advantage living here in south Texas. We are right now only paying $1.95 for gas. I know the economy is hard on people right now, but the way I see it for us, as long as we remain employed, the down turn in the economy is good for us. When the economy was good we could not afford food or gas, now we are paying gas prices from years ago.

Movie Review-"W"

2008-10-23T10:18:00.001-05:00

This will sound strange but I want to write a quick movie review of the movie W. The strange part of this review is that I have not seen the movie and have no intention of ever seeing it. I have two major problems with this movie. The first is the subject matter. I know I may be in the minority here, but I do not see a negative movie about our sitting president as appropriate. I understand our first amendment rights, and I am not suggesting we censor this movie, I just think it is classless and would go as far as unpatriotic. I am not one of those conservatives that go around calling liberals unpatriotic for everything they do, but in this case I believe the label fits. It is not unpatriotic to criticize the president, but making this movie crosses a line for me. I am of the opinion that if you do not like the man, fine, but respect the office he holds. Stone is not making a movie about Bush, he is making a movie about my President. I did not have a problem several years ago when Stone made Nixon, I disagreed with the context, but not the idea. If this movie came out in ten years I would not even have a problem with the idea of it, but Bush is our sitting president. I am not preaching a double standard here, with all the controversy surrounding the Clinton presidency; I would have disagreed with a movie being made about him (as if Hollywood would make a negative movie about Clinton). Even as a conservative, I encouraged my students here to go see both Obama and Hilary Clinton when they visited our campus during the primaries. I said one may become our next president, and you may never again have a chance to see and listen to a president. When Ex-President Clinton came to the University of Arkansas while I attended there, I went to hear him, not because I am a Clinton fan, but because he was my president. We may not like the man running our country, but he was voted in fairly and deserves some level of respect

The fact that this movie is based on real events is my other concern. Based on real events is Hollywood code for completely fiction. This movie is an Oliver Stone film, and Stone has a proven tract record when it comes to historical films, he does not let little things like facts or truth get in the way of him telling a story. Every historical movie Stone has ever made are full of falsehoods. I dread every year teaching about the Kennedy assassination, because at least one student wants to challenge me on the facts that they got from Stone’s JFK. What I have to explain is that the facts that are presented in the movie are not facts. Stone used creative license to make up facts to make his story better or to make the conspiracy bigger. Stone’s purpose of making historical film is not to educate but to entertain. “W” is not a biography of the life and presidency of Bush meant to educate the public, but just another partisan bash of a president that Stone does not like because he disagrees with his conservative policies. It is even more an attempt to make lots of money playing up on peoples dislike for Bush and in the process put one last nail in our president’s coffin. If Stone thinks it’s important to inform the public about the problems in the White House, where was his movie about the Clintons? Have we forgotten scandal after scandal occurring in the Clinton administration? This is a partisan attempt at defaming, and I for one find it appalling. I just hope more Americans agree with me, and do not give Stone your money so he can continue to attack an already wounded president and nation.

No Encouragement From Recent Debates—And What Can JFK Tell Us About Future Difficulties

2008-10-20T09:06:00.001-05:00

Now that the debates are finally over, it is very discouraging to know that we will not have a good leader to help us through these troubling times. I was so unimpressed with the three presidential debates. They said a lot without saying anything. This has been a difficult election for me, because I am a conservative, yet I am not impressed by the Republican choice. I am not a basher of President Bush, but under his leadership things have not gone the way they should. I do not blame the President for all the problems, I do not have a problem with the war, but feel his leadership in the financial crisis has been lacking. Again not all his problems were his fault, but he could have done more. As a strong conservative, this is difficult to say, but I was fine with a Democrat winning. I think things are bad right now and maybe a shake up in the White House might be the answer. We need to do things like fix health care, it is a joke that we can not afford. I have insurance from work, but still can not afford to go to the doctor or dentist. I do not believe the Democrats are capable of fixing the problems, but the Republicans have not succeeded so far, so I believe let the Democrats try. If they fix the economy, fix the war, than great. My little family is far from rich, but work hard, so if the Democrats have something that can help us, while keeping taxes low and not hurting small business then all the power to them. What I mean is if they can fix things then the Democrats should be in power for awhile, if not than the American people can see that the problems are not the Republicans fault. The Democrats have claimed they have all the answers, let them put their money where their mouth is, and then shut up when they fail.

The problem is I do not trust Obama. If Joe Biden was running as the president, I might even vote for him. I was impressed with him in the debate. I do not agree with everything he believes in, but he is trustworthy and will not get us into trouble. Obama’s extreme liberal views are scary and dangerous. Mostly I am scared of his foreign policy beliefs. If you read my post a few weeks ago, it is not his lack of experience that bothers me, he has as much as Reagan, it is his rhetoric of defeat. I believe things will be very calm in the Middle East for the next month, the terrorists do not want to help McCain. They will wait until Obama becomes the president and then all hell will let break loose in Iraq in hopes of Obama labeling it a failure and pulling out our troops. The terrorists will push Obama, it is in their best interest. What has made Obama so popular is this promise to end the war and bring our boys home. With Obama as president, nations like Iran are bound to test his strength. They know if they get a bomb now, we will attack. But they have to think Obama will be slow to act, if he acts at all. Escalating any kind of war in the Middle East will look very bad for Obama.

Historically I see Obama’s situation similar to when JFK took over. Under the Ike regime the Russians were held in check. The Russian leader Nikita Khrushchev knew Ike was a warrior and was not a man to play with. In fact Ike had threatened to use nukes in the next engagement. Then in 1960 a very young and inexperienced man took over and Khrushchev felt he had a president he could take advantage of, and for the first year Khrushchev was right. Kennedy had some growing pains to work out. In April of 1861 Kennedy launched the ill fated Bay of Pigs invasion in which 2,000 anti-Castro Cubans wadded ashore the island of Cuba with the intent of removing Castro from power. Kennedy had been told that the Cuban people hated Castro and would join the invaders in overthrowing their leader. Instead the invasion was a disaster from the start. First there was no popular uprising, and second Castro’s troops were seasoned soldiers from years of fighting and cut our men down. All that Kennedy accomplished was pushing the Cubans closer to the Russians. Kennedy did the stand up thing and took all the blame and apologized to the American people (I have always felt like Bush should have followed his example, Americans forgave Kennedy because they felt like he was honest with them, this mistake and apology helped Kennedy’s popularity.)

Following Kennedy’s failure in Cuba, Khrushchev agreed to meet the young President at Vienna for a summit. The Russian leader decided to take a hard line with this new young inexperienced President. Kennedy found himself outwitted by the politically savvy Khrushchev. In private he tongue tied Kennedy and in public treated him like a nice little boy. It was right after the summit that the Russians resumed nuclear testing and closed down the border between East and West Berlin. The Russians built the most lasting symbol of the Cold War, the Berlin Wall. Kennedy critics wanted the President to stop the wall, bulldoze it if necessary, but Kennedy did nothing. It was looking as if Russia was gaining the edge over the Americans

By October 1862 Khrushchev felt he could do anything he wanted and made one more aggressive move. The Russians built installations in Cuba to hold nuclear missiles. When the Americans became aware of the weapons being sent to Cuba, we panicked. Some Kennedy advisors wanted to order a strike against Cuba, but Kennedy followed the advice of his brother and ordered a naval blockade of the island. Kennedy told the Russians that if they attempted to breach the blockade, he would see it as an act of war. This was a tense several days for the President and the American people as we waited to see what the Russians would do and if we might have a nuclear war. One of Kennedy’s advisors, Dean Rusk, said “we’re eyeball to eyeball … I think the other fellow just blinked.” The Russians turned their ships around and war was avoided.

Kennedy was successful in stopping the Russian aggression; the question will be can Obama follow? Kennedy ran his campaign as a cold warrior saying, “Freedom and Communism are in deadly embrace; the World cannot exist half slave and half free.” Obama has run his campaign on American was wrong getting involved in Iraq. Like Kennedy, Obama will be tested. The terrorists have to know that Obama has promised to take troops out of Iraq, and that he has very little experience in national security. Our enemies need to take our threats seriously for them to have any effect. I am not saying Obama will fail, I am just saying I am fearful of what may happen while Obama is learning. Also the learning curve may be much more difficult for Obama, Khrushchev was a cold hard man, but not crazy, he did not want war any more than we did. Islamic terrorist will not have the same reservations as the Russians. If they get a bomb, they will use it. I just hope Obama is able to remain strong and rely on advice of others, like Biden, who hopefully will guide him properly, that American needs to be strong. Peace is the best, but sometimes we need to act.

Movie Review-HBO's John Adams

2008-10-16T09:45:00.002-05:00

Once again HBO has come through with another quality mini-series. If you read this blog then you might remember a post I wrote about how HBO has recently put out better movies than what most of Hollywood is doing. Band of Brothers is the best WWII drama I have ever seen and Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee is just as excellent. This time HBO has taken on the long overdue bio-pic of John Adams. Even before I saw the movie I was happy by the subject. John Adams is one of the most important founding fathers, yet is largely overlooked and forgotten. From personal experience in the class room, around 7 out of 10 students say that Jefferson was the second president. With so much talk about Washington, Franklin, Madison, and Jefferson, everyone forgets Adams came before Jefferson. One reason for this omission is possibly because Adams was not a great president, but when his career is taken as a whole it rivals, and I would argue possibly surpass, the accomplishment of Jefferson. Jefferson may have been the mouth behind the revolution, but Adams was the brains.

As for the movie, it was based on David McCullough biography of Adams, and he served as an advisor to the film. McCullough’s book was an excellent read and gave great detail on our second president (maybe if we are lucky HBO and McCullough will continue their partnership and make a movie about Truman). With McCullough as advisor, the film gave a very accurate depiction of Adams, though they did not make him out to be a very sympathetic character. From what I know of Adams, this was the case. However McCullough in his book made an interesting comment of how Adams was not as hated in Congress as he made himself out to be in later years. He seemed to love to be portrayed as the bad guy and yet according to McCullough he was not. Yet in the movie he was portrayed exactly in that negative light, as a hard man to like. My take is that Adams may have wanted to be the martyr, knowing that he would be forgotten, as he said in the film, all credit for the Revolution would be given to Franklin and Jefferson. I also found the portrayals of other characters as interesting, showing how the filmmakers saw different men. Washington and Franklin were the great sages. Jefferson was shown in an interesting light, most of it positive, until the end of the saga when you discover it was Jefferson leading the negative attacks against his friend. They kept their most bitter portrayal for Alexander Hamilton. I find I like Hamilton, probably because no one else does, then or today. One character I think they could have done more with was Adams’ son, John Quincy. It is just my own personal preferences, but I think John Quincy may have been one of our all time greatest leaders, maybe one day someone will do a show on him (if you have seen the movie Amistad then you saw one version of the president),

As for the themes of the movie, I was happy with their choices. They began by showing the character of Adams when he defends the British troops from the Boston Massacre. That was the perfect beginning to establish who Adams was, a man who would defend those he disagreed with out of principle. Also, even though he was a revolutionary, he was not a radical. They used his cousin Sam Adams to demonstrate the differences. There is a good argument that states that the Sons of Liberty were created to keep the colonial mobs in check, that on their own they would have created more havoc and violence as portrayed in the movie. The most important parts of the movie were the scenes dealing with the Congress. We call these men the founding fathers and give them reverence, but in reality they were a mess of squabbling children. The congress was in such chaos during most of their sessions that in the middle of the war Benedict Arnold switched sides thinking we would be better off remaining with the British than to be governed buy such men.

The most boring parts of the movie were the scenes in France, yet they are important to the story. As shown in the movie, Adams struggled in France, he did not have the personality to deal with foreign emissaries, yet his brilliance in the Treaty of Versailles can not be overlooked. Adams and John Jay quickly realized after the war, that their best chance for a prosperous America would be to connect themselves politically with England and to leave their ally France out of the negations. It was shrewd political maneuvering to pull off what Adams did.

As I said earlier, Adam’s presidency was not a remarkable one. He was not a good politician, and struggled when asked to compromise his beliefs. In order to compromise he had to admit someone else had a valid point, and he always believed he was right. At the same time, he had his beliefs and standards and would not budge on his principles. He might have won a second term had he only declared an official war on the French. Jefferson was politically tied with the French and it would have hurt Jefferson’s campaign had the US been actively engaged with the French on the battleground. Yet Jefferson would not go against his principles, even when it meant hurting his political career, some thing we should respect. Also Jefferson would not have done. As shown in the movie Adams presidency was scared by a struggle with France and his passing of the Alien and Sedation Acts.

I did enjoy the love story of the movie. Because Adams and his wife, Abigail, were apart so often they were forced to write letters, and fortunately for us those letters have survived. When you read the correspondence between the two, you can see how much Adams loved and depended on his wife. His confrontational personality was softened by his very strong and patient wife. She is one of the most remarkable first ladies, and brought strength to Adam’s lack self confidence that he experienced in private. The most touching moment came with the death of his beloved wife, Melissa and I found ourselves very choked up. A fascinating aspect of the movie was contrasting Adam’s affection for his wife that seemed to be absent for his children. He was hard on his family, and drove some of his children away, yet at the same time raised at least one who was exceptional. One area they could have explained a bit more was how Adams came from a Puritan background. His rigidness was a product of his time in New England, and would not have stood out to his peers from the same up bringing. Even the bedroom scene where John and Abigail were intimate without disrobing would have been normal; they would have practiced modesty even amongst themselves. But that behavior was only common among the New England Puritans, and not the other founders. The movie contrasted Adams behavior with the personality of Franklin who was a playboy. They could have helped viewers to understand Adams more by discussing his religious background.

I did enjoy some of the cultural and social history thrown in amongst the politics. They dealt with colonial medicine in a few scenes. Some the treatments were as bad as the problems, especially treatments like bleeding. They also had a scene where Dr. Rush (a very important man in his own right) preformed a mastectomy. As a whole, this was a very family friendly film, but this scene and one at the beginning had nudity. I did find this unfortunate, it was not necessary. Neither time was the nudity sexual, but none the less nudity. One time was the mastectomy, the other was a scene where a man was stripped down and tarred and feathered. I can understand the argument that both were needed to show the harshness of the acts, I understand but do not agree, mainly because outside of those scenes there was nothing in the film that was not PG and you could show your children a film that captured our founding fathers the way no other film has.

As a whole I greatly enjoyed the film and would recommend it. It is very long, and at times does drag, where as Band of Brothers was much longer but you never noticed. This movie can be slow at times, but the slow parts were necessary to get the entire story. I would even go further than just recommending this; I think you should see it. We at times take for granted what others did before us; it was the struggle of men like Adams that have given us our freedoms today. He was a remarkable man, and invaluable man to the revolution, and a forgotten man. I hope more people watch this film and come away with a greater appreciation for this great man.

Job Hunt Revised

2008-10-15T10:48:00.000-05:00

Well in the last few weeks the job openings have slowed down some. There are only four jobs left to apply for. There is the chance that this could be all, but hopefully there will be some late arrivals. No matter what happens with this batch, there is always a second round of jobs that will open in the spring, but hopefully by then I will have landed a good one. So here are the last four that I am applying to.

Berea College. They are looking for someone to do early American. Berea is in Kentucky, about an hour south of Lexington. I know the area somewhat from doing research trips there. It is a small but beautiful campus and was founded by John Fee one of the nations leading abolitionists in the 1850s, and someone included in my own research (I hope that gives me an edge). The most interesting part about Berea is that no one pays to go there. Every student has a job instead of paying. The school makes a lot of its money from the arts and crafts the students make at the Appalachian cultural and arts center.

Gonzaga University. They are also looking for someone to do early American. Gonzaga is in Spokane Washington, an area I have never been to, but have heard nice things. Most are familiar with this school, it is an excellent university and probably most famous for its basketball team and the school of John Stockton.

Southern New Hampshire University. Also wanting someone for early America. This is an area that I have never been to and do not know much about the university. It is in a quaint New England town about an hour north of the Boston area. If I get an interview I can write more.

Slippery Rock University. Just like the others, they are looking for an early American historian. Slippery Rock is in western Pennsylvania an hour north of Pittsburg and also in a small university town. I really enjoy these small university towns and like how you can have a relationship with the students and the town.

I would be grateful for a chance to teach at any of these schools. I have now finished applying to all the jobs. It is still too soon to have heard back from most of them. The only job I have given up on so far is BYU. They started doing their search in September, and by now would have started interviewing. I am hopeful that a job will come through this year, I have not prayed so hard for something in a long time.

Savannah's Sleeping Beauty Cake

2008-10-05T20:07:00.003-05:00

I can see why cakes are so expensive to buy. I made Savannah a Sleeping Beauty cake for her birthday. It took me around 3 to 4 hours to finish it, and then of coarse only took a few minutes to destroy and eat. It was worth it however, Savannah was very excited, she loves sleeping beauty. I was happy with the final product, this is my third cake, and doing Jake’s R2-D2 cake earlier this year gave me a bit of practice with fondant. For more on our sweet Savannah or her birthday see Melissa’s blog who is going to write a lot more.

2008-10-02T21:19:00.006-05:00

Today I wanted to comment on a few books I have read in the past several weeks. Two of them I recommend highly and the other I had a hard time with even though the author is considered one of the best at writing new westerns.

The Western is Cormac McCarthy’s Blood Meridian. I am a fan of the western and was excited to read this book after my good friend Matt suggested it. However, I had a hard time getting into this novel. The main character, simply known as the kid, was difficult to understand and the character development was just not there. I should have known I would like this book when all the reviews compared him to Herman Melville and William Faulkner. I know these are both classic authors, but they are ones that I have never enjoyed reading, and McCarthy reads the way they do. I have always felt I was not smart enough to understand Faulkner, and that is the way I felt like reading this. One top of this McCarthy also wrote All the Pretty Horses, which I have heard was a good book, but it was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. So my conclusion is I did not enjoy the book, but Matt who is very intelligent very much enjoys McCarthy. So as with most things movies and books give them a try.

The other two did not need as much thinking. I read non-fiction all day, so maybe when I read for pleasure I want to turn off my brain. I just finished reading Stewart Mandel’s Bowls, Polls, and Tattered Souls. Mandel is the lead college football writer for SI.com and my personal favorite. So when he wrote a full book about college football (one of my favorite pastimes) I had to read it. Mandel explains some of the major controversies dealing with football today including chapters on the BCS, how the ranking system works with college football, why Heisman winners are failing at the next level, the issue of paying coaches too much money and than expecting them to win right away or fans call for their head, why Notre Dame is put on high, how Boston College and Clemson are somehow in the same conference, why there are so many bowl games, and how ever team cheats-expect yours. Basically Mandel loves the game, and you get how much through the book, but at the same time at the top levels it is corrupt and money runs everything. He is a funny writer and gives some very insightful details into the game I love. If you love college football this is a must read book.

The last book, I also highly enjoyed and found it very informative. It is Michael Winder’s Presidents and Prophets. I am very thankful to my grandfather for sending me this book. It is about the relationship between the LDS church and the US presidents. In a very detailed way Winder looks at different presidents views on God and as soon as the Church was founded, their views on this new religion. It begins with the hardships the Church had to face and the discrimination presidents had against this peculiar religion. He discusses the major issues the church had to face; especially polygamy and the Church’s fight for statehood. He also details important LDS leaders such as Reed Smoot who was in the Senate for years and made strong headways into the government understanding and accepting the Church. Finally in the 20th century Winder explores how many prophets and president developed a strong relationship, even including Mormons in high positions, many more that I ever know about. It was fascinating to learn many things I never know and how many prominent Mormons had served in politics. I immensely enjoyed reading this book and would recommend it to any member of the LDS Church who wants to learn more about their history.

Job hunt-Part III

2008-09-26T10:15:00.002-05:00

Well this has been a great week on the job search, the flood gates have opened. Just this week alone 7 new jobs have opened up. If you read this blog for historical perspectives on issues, I am sorry for taking up so much time lately with personal issues. I will get back to historical writing soon, but for now the job hunt takes up all my time and family and friends keep asking me where I have applied. So here are the jobs for this past week in which I am applying.

University of West Alabama. They are looking for a historian to teach everything before 1865. It is in Livingston Alabama, which is a very small town on the Mississippi border. Melissa is scared. It also has just a small branch of the church.

South Dakota State University. This is a job I am very excited about. They want a historian to do early America and teach the military history class. I like this job because it is a large university but with a small town feeling. This feels like Blacksburg which would make me very happy.

Westminster College. Little known college in Missouri, but a great location. This school became famous when in 1947 Winston Churchill gave their graduation address and said an Iron Curtin has descended across Europe (the name stuck). It is a small liberal arts college looking for someone to do 19th cent political history.

University of Southern Mississippi. This one is a long shot, they are looking for an established historian to teach their Civil War classes, but I will apply anyway. Small southern town on the gulf coast, with lots of southern charm. It has been voted several times as one of the best towns in the nation. By the way it is mostly famous for being the school of Bret Farve.

University of Toledo. Looking for someone to teach US political history. I known very little about the school or the town. I know I am too young for this, but when I think of Toledo I still think of the Toledo Mud Hens and Max Klinger. If I get an interview I will have to learn more.

The Citadel. This is a military school in Charleston SC. I like Charleston very much and the thought of teaching at a military school I find intriguing. Their students have to behave and studying is forced on them. This a for a southern historian, which as a civil war historian I fall into that category.

Ashland University. This is a small school in Ashland Ohio. They want an early American historian who focuses on political history. These are the types of schools I am interested in.

As always keep us in your prayers please, and if you know people at these school call them and beg and if that does not work, maybe we should go to bribing.

Job Hunt-Part II

2008-09-19T09:12:00.001-05:00

Once again I have been asked about new job possibilities. I have been disappointed so far with the number of jobs being listed, I was hoping for many more. So far I have applied to 13 schools, I was hoping for more like 20-30. If only I did Middle East history or even this year Colonial History there are tons of jobs. It is a circular thing, next year there could be 40 19th Century jobs, but I do not want to wait until next year. Keep us in your prayers that either I will get one of these (I only need one to be interested) or something good will open. Here are the most recent jobs

Old Dominion University. They want someone to teach 19th Century and must be able to teach Civil War (hay I can do that). It’s back in Va which is great but in Norfolk which is kind of a rough area, but close to the beach.

Skidmore College. They want some to teach everything from Colonial to Civil War which I would enjoy, I like Colonial and Revolutionary stuff. It is in New York state which I think is one of the prettiest areas in the country. Closest family will be around 6 to 7 hours which is far, but better than now.

Pittsburg State University. They want a 19th Century. This is in Pittsburg Kansas which is an hour or so south of Kansas City. It is small town that focuses on the University, perfect for me. They also have the winningest football team in Div II history. The best part of living here is that like in Arkansas we are a day and a half from everyone, which is not bad. If we live in the East or West we will be close to some family but 3 days from others, this way we would be right in the middle and can see everyone.

Troy University. They want a 19th Century with a subfield in the Civil War. Perfect job for me, but it is in South Alabama. If we can make it here, we can live anywhere, but well have to see. It is a good civil war job, and they love studying the Civil War in Alabama so it might be a good fit.

Salisburg University. Looking for a 19th Century historian. The good part is it is in the eastern shore of Maryland which is a nice location. It is close to family and cultural events yet isolated enough to be rural. It is also very close to the beach and would be a nice area.

So only five new ones, but it only takes one

Does Experience Matter? A Historical View

2008-09-09T11:48:00.001-05:00

One of my friends, Kelsey, has suggested a pro and con list of the leading candidates. I am intrigued, so I thought I would give it a shot. Yet before I do, I want to discuss one of the biggest issues being debated, experience. Does political experience make you a better president, or is character more important, or simply ideas. What can history tell us about experience? Note, just because experience helped or hurt these presidents does not mean the same is true with our candidates.

Lets began with looking at those men who are considered by most to be our greatest presidents: George Washington, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and Reagan. There are others that can be thrown in, especially based on your party leanings, but these tend to be accepted by both parties (Reagan is the one controversial, yet most liberals would still agree with his skills while not agreeing with his politics. Many people would include JFK because of his popularity, but scholars do not list him, with his lack of achievements.

George Washington’s history is fairly well known. His background was in the military. Washington set the standard for what was considered the greatest qualification for being president, military service. Being a war hero is a big plus, but some type of military experience was almost always necessary until the election of Bill Clinton. Washington entered the presidency, with no political experience, none official at least. However, the military then and still today, but more then, was very political. You did not become a General without playing some politics. Then there is leadership. Washington may not have had political leadership, but had plenty of experience in management.

Lincoln also has a well known history, one with some but limited political experience. He had this military credentials, leading men into the Blackhawk wars, but that was also very limited. Lincoln was involved in politics most of his adult life, one way or another, but for actual service he served four consecutive terms in the Illinois state assembly starting in 1834. In 1846 he elected to the US House of Representatives and served for one term only. He did make a big splash attacking the sitting president for the Mexican War. In 1858 he ran for the US Senate against Stephan Douglas in which he lost but made a name for himself. It was not until 1860 that he won his next election as President. So Lincoln did have some experience but did not hold an office from 1848 until when he ran for president in 1860.

Teddy Roosevelt had a life time of public service, but only a limited amount of elected office experience. From 1888 to 1895 he was appointed to the Civil Service Commission where he spent his time fighting corruption and bring about reform. In 1885 to 1896 he was President of the NYC police commissioners and again fought corruption and brought about reform. In 1896 he was appointed Assistant Secretary of the Navy, but resigned in 1898 when the US went to war with Spain. Teddy created his own cavalry command, known as the Rough Riders, and became the nations biggest war hero. Based on his popularity Teddy was elected Governor of New York, but only served half his term before being put on the presidential ticket as VP (sounds a lot like Palin, for McCain’s sake lets hope that’s were the similarities end). A year or so into his term as VP, the president was killed making TR the new Commander and Chief.

Franklin D. Roosevelt has a similar résumé as his cousin Teddy, but with a bit more experience in elected office. From 1910 to 1913 he served in the New York state Legislature. In 1913, like his cousin he was appointed to Assistant Secretary of the Navy, which he resigned in 1920 to run on the losing ticket as the VP with James Cox only to lose to Harding. In 1921 he caught polio and most thought his political ambitions were over only to be proven wrong when in 1929 he won the governorship of New York and stayed there until 1932 when he ran for the President and won. Still just a one term Governor (Palin is sounding better).

Ronald Reagan’s leadership experience came from a much different source then the rest. He did have military experience, enlisting in the reserve in 1937, but health problems kept him out of WWII. In 1941 he was elected to the Board of Directors of the Screen Actors Guild and then later from 1947 to 1952 and again in 1959 he was president of the Guild. SAG was not intended to be political, but in Reagan’s case it was. Reagan worked with the House Committee on Un-American Activities bringing Hollywood elites before Congress in order to root out communist. In 1967 he ran and won the governorship of California and served until 1975. The next year he had a failed run for the White house. It was not until 1980 that he won the presidential election and 4 years later won every state in the Union except Minnesota where his challenger was from. He was a very popular and effective president and only had one term as governor under him.

I would like to mention just one other, Ike. Most do not consider him to be one of the best, but he was an effective presidents. Ike came directly from the military with no political experience. Being the commanding general of WWII does give him leadership and some political experience (Ike keep getting bigger when Patton slipped because he could not or would not play the political game). The most important issue in the 1950s was the cold war, and Ike knew how to play that game, but had never been elected to any office before he was president.

So does experience matter? It seems that many of these great presidents had very little. Of these great ones, it seems that being a governor was important in their success. I thought all the talk about McCain’s character was overkill, but after analyzing past presidents, experience is not always the key, character seems to be important and basic leadership skills. Ultimately I feel it is not always experience, but the issues that should help us decide who we should vote for, but we need to consider the character as well. Obama has more experience in public office than Ike, but Ike had great advisors like John Foster Dullas to help. Palin has limited experience, but as much as the two Roosevelts and Reagan. It is their issues and what they want to accomplish and if they have the character to follow through. Another good President, Harry Truman, had little experience but on his desk read the sign, “The Buck Stops Here” and that is how he governed. With today’s politicians the buck seems to stop everywhere but the president. I think experience is important, but it does not need to be elected positions, we need to look at their life experience and what kind of person they are and can they live up and take on the challenge of the job.

Two Weeks of Political Fun

2008-09-03T11:04:00.004-05:00

For someone who studies political history, this week has been like a trip to Disney Land with two weeks in a row of party conventions. I just wanted to comment on a few thoughts I have had so far.

1. Conventions are interesting, but incredibly pointless and very expensive. It would seem to me that the thousands and thousands of dollars spent could be used for a better purpose, especially when both candidates are claiming to want to cut spending and fix the nations problems. Use the money for the people and not just those who attend conventions. There was a time when conventions were necessary, that is how the candidates were chosen. No one even thought of Lincoln as a contender until the convention began and the Republicans could not come to a consensus on anyone. They realized on the ballots that Lincoln’s name was listed as most peoples second choice and after three votes his name was suggested. Today the candidates are chosen months before they arrive, with modern communication and technology the convention is obsolete. It is just a way for people to party

2. I find both VP choices as counter productive for the candidate’s major message. Obama is calling for change, to vote for someone outside of the Beltway boys. He claims our foreign policy is broken and attacked Clinton for her voting record on foreign affairs. Yet he then chose Biden as his VP. Biden has been in the Senate for 20 years and is completely part of the established Beltway insiders, and better yet his voting record mirrors that of Clinton whom Obama criticized. Biden is many things, but he is not change. Biden was brought in for his expertise on foreign policy, which Obama disagrees with, but at the same time he has shown in recent years, not to be much of an expert with the way he has voted.

McCain is no better. His major issue is experience, yet he chose Palin, a not yet completed one term Gov from the small state (population) of Alaska. How do you claim experience and yet bring in someone with very little. I do understand that she is the VP and so can learn. The problems is the way the Democrats are spinning this and how my students see it is, McCain is not far from death and she could be the next president. Like Biden, Palin was brought on the ticket for other reasons (will discuss later), but is a gamble for McCain. I am very interested in her speech tonight.

I doubt the media will report it this way, but at least the McCain ticket makes more sense. Both tickets have one with experience and one without. It just makes more sense to me for the teacher to lead and the pupil to learn and not other way around.

3. I thought Obama’s speech was his best yet. No one has ever doubted his charisma and speaking ability, but in this speech he actually put forth some of his ideas and what is agenda will be. As I polled my students, at least those that watched, most liked his speech especially now that he stood for something. However where he stood lacking, and this also from students, was how he plans to implement his plans while at the same time lower taxes.

4. My student’s reaction to Obama’s speech is my next point. I have over 400 students and when we talked about the speech only about 30 had watched it. I think this is possibly bad news for the Obama camp. Last Spring there was Obama fever on campus, an excitement I have not ever seen before, and probably nothing like it since Bobby Kennedy in 68. Yet it is gone now, not replaced with a dislike of Obama, but disinterest. Obama counts on the youth vote, but instead of his excitement building after his speech it has remained stagnant.

5. One reason for Obama’s popularity stagnation was the brilliant move by McCain to announce Palin the day after Obama’s speech. All the talk the next day was everyone’s shock of Palin and not anything about Obama. Now even with the issue of Palin’s daughter, she has captured all the media attention, I imagine tonight’s speech will be well watched.

6. What a coup for the Republicans to have Liberman talk last night. It was an interesting speech, at times poking at the Republicans. The most powerful part was his end when he addressed Democrats saying in this election you should not vote for party but for America. I did not like how he used Jefferson to prove his point. I am tired of people always using Jefferson. He was a great man yes, but never has there been a greater example of saying one thing and doing another. I wrote a whole blog about how it is hard to live up to principles with the difficulty of governing; I used Jefferson as the example.

7. The best speech so far from either party was Fred Thompson. Where was this when he was running for president (I do not believe he wanted to win, just wanted to say that he once ran). I am not a huge McCain supporter, we disagree on several issues, but after Thompson’s speech last night no one can attack his character. I have heard McCain’s story before, but Thompson tells it so well, I actually found my self choked up at the end when he was talking about how McCain can not raise his arms about his shoulders and solute the flag. The torture he received for 5 years makes that impossible, and so we should solute him. He may have money now, but he knows what it means to struggle. In a weird way he reminds me of FDR; a wealthy may who struggled physically for so long that he understood the meaning of hardship and more importantly how to overcome. FDR once said after trying for two years just to wiggle your toes, everything else seemed easier. McCain has a similar background with struggles and better yet endurance and victory. Disagree with the man all you want, but do not question his integrity or character or his ability to challenge the system and make change. Obama talks a good game, McCain has lived it. Even though we disagree, I respect him for standing by decisions that have made him unpopular even within his own party.

I hope everyone watches the speechs, watch on C-Span and not the news channels, they only show highlights that they chose and talk through most of it. Palin up tonight.

The Rules of Camping

2008-08-27T09:15:00.004-05:00

My post today is a bit of an inside joke, but anyone who knows me well will understand it. A bunch of friends have been sharing old pictures on facebook and my friend Kari reminded me of some of our campouts. I love nature and being outside, so camping is one of my favorite activities. When I was going to school in Provo we went on a couple campouts down to southern Utah where it was a bit warmer. The problem I had was that a bunch of people were going and some of them novices at camping so I was worried they would be unprepared. I had a meeting prior to the campout to try to arrange things for our first trip. Of course I have been mocked ever since. For our second campout somewhat as a joke, but some for real I made of set of camping rules and basic agenda for our trip. These rules have taken on a life of their own. When Kari brought them up yesterday I dug through some old papers and found them and thought I would post them.

In order for some of them to make sense a little background it required. On our first trip we got caught in a blizzard driving down I 15. It was a white out and we were only driving 5-10 miles an hour. I was outside the car trying to keep the window clear so Matt could see to drive. After driving like this for a while one of the cars (Jen) decided to turn back. That would have been fine, but some of our gear was with them. The other two cars, being the mountain men we were pushed on until the conditions just simply got too bad to drive and we all piled into a hotel room. The next day we made it to St. George where we camped in Zion Park and proceeded to enjoy ourselves. Number 3 will make more since if you know that Tommy Boy was still a very popular movie. This second trip we camped at Gunlocke Lake West of St. George where we fished and my favorite part, cooking over an open fire.

The Rules of Camping

1. Must leave on time
2, Only appropriate music allowed on road trip (ex Steve Miller Band)
3. Superstar must be played at least once
4. But no radios allowed once at camping site
5. Upon arrival camp must be set up right away
6. No marshmallows until after dark
7. It is not dark until the camping director declares it so
8. No one is to say anything that is not funny to Lorna
9. Everyone must play nice
10. If you catch a fish you must clean your own fish
11. No making fun of food is allowed
12. You must please the camping gods at all times
13. The camping gods speak through the voice of the camping director
14. No attempting to get loving from Hottie Abe since he will not be attending
15. No putting out the fire the Ol’ boy scout way
16. No wearing the same socks to bed that your wore all day
17. No forgetting of clothes in others cars is permitted
18. Once on the road, no turning around is allowed (punishable by death)
19. There will be a five dollar fine for whining and crying (RIP Chris)
20. Any rules may be added by camping director as moved by camping gods when needed

Travel

James’ truck: James, Kari
Matt’s car: Matt, Lorna, Staci

Tents

Tent one: James and Matt
Tent two: Kari, Lorna, and Staci
Note: Loving may be acquired at tent one after midnight

-for more on our camping adventure see Kari's blog, it comes complete with soundtrack

The Olymipic Games

2008-08-25T11:03:00.000-05:00

This has been another great two weeks watching the Olympics. I am glad it ended right before school started so I can stop staying up so late every night watching the games. There were some great highlights that came out of watching the games, but I think they have been covered to death; I would like to just make a few side comments.

What Michael Phelps did was amazing. The only problem I had with the coverage of Phelps is that he was considered the greatest athlete ever. That may or may not be true, but should gold medals be the standard for how good an athlete is, or does it mean they compete in the right sports. The only athletes who have a chance to earn 9 medals are in swimming or possible track. If you want to talk about the best athletes, May and Walsh must be in the discussion, but the maximum amount of medals they can earn is one. If May and Walsh earned a medal for every match the way swimmers earn one for every race, they could earn more than Phelps and receive the glory. What about the American that won the decathlon, is there a better athlete? He should get a medal for every event, but he only gets one for competing in ten events. Having said that Phelps was amazing, I still do not know how he pulled off the final race, it still looks to me like the other guy won.

I used to love playing beach volleyball and I still love watching it. Watching May and Walsh and the Thin Beast and the Professor play was awesome. Both Golds going to the Americans is the way it should be in beach volleyball.

Yes the men finally took back the gold in basketball, but they were not impressive doing it. They blew out every team they played until the last two. The way they played the first quarter against Argentina was truly amazing, but it must have gone to their head because that was the last great quarter they played. The American team has one thing going for them, more pure talent, but it ends there. I loved watching the Spanish play, they way they play as a team is how basketball should be, the way the college game it. They scored a bunch of their points off lay-up by setting back screens. The NBA players just want to go one on one and show off how good they are and expect a foul like they get in the NBA. The Americans played like cocky punks whom they just expected everyone to role over for them, but the Spanish had different plans. Several times we had fast breaks and the American player with the ball would not pass to the open man running the court but tried to take it himself and missed the circus shot. The worst was Kobe, he is a black hole, once he touches the ball he shots it. For ever great shot he made and everyone cheered his wildly he missed 5 or 6 other shots. And what’s with shooting all the three pointers. The American team better enjoy their medal, there is no guarantee they will keep it, one the other teams get a bid deeper and some more athletic ability, we are in real trouble.

It will be interesting to see if things are different in four years in London when it comes to the Chinese supremacy. There was a few times when it seemed like hometown judges or at least swayed by the crowd. This Olympics reminded me of the 1934 games in Berlin. There are some similarities. Both were hosted by tyrannical governments, Hitler and the Communist Chinese. Both wanted to host the games to show their prowess. Hitler wanted to show the world the Aryan race was supreme, where as I believe the Chinese government had basically the same goal for their own people. Both had government support machines to help their athletes. Both achieved their goals. Everyone knows about Jesse Owens winning four gold medals, but then they forget that the Germans won the most medals of the games, just like the Chinese won the most golds. However the Germans did not retain their dominance, we will have to wait to see about the Chinese.

I think it is a testament to how good our athletes are that they can compete against nations like China. China’s programs are fully sponsored by the government, who this year had even put in place directives to begin excelling in areas where they never have before. Their athletes are chosen at very young ages and once part of the athletics program are given anything required to succeed. Our athletes, yes some are spoiled with money and are sent off to train, but others work full time jobs and train on the side. Some of our athletes come from meager circumstances yet excel in spite of their surroundings.

I don’t care that the Chinese gymnasts were underage, and yes anyone could tell that they were underage. It was not like they were 15 year olds competing in a 12 and under league where being older was a clear advantage. Unless we had some 15 year old phenom waiting in the wings, they still beat us, they were just better. Having said that, it shows the character of the Chinese government and the IOC in allowing it to happen. There was no way the IOC would investigate the host nation, not that it would do any good. How can you argue with the government who would just print fake birth certificates?

What a horrible loss for the coach of the men’s indoor volleyball, the greatest joy mixed with such tragedy. Their victory on Sunday was the most emotional, it will not make up for the loss of loved ones, but somehow it might ease the pain and make all the players feel better for winning for their coach.
I love the games; we look forward to every Olympic year. There were so many good stories that make you want to just try a bit harder, like distance swimmers with only one leg. I hope everyone got something from the games that can inspire them to greatness

The Hunt Begins

2008-08-23T15:15:00.001-05:00

I thought I would give a quick update on what is going on with my job hunt. I was hired here on a three-year lectureship and now I am going into my last year. So my goal this year is to get a tenure track job. It is still early yet, many good jobs will come out in the next couple of months. So far there are a few good possibilities. I am not sure any of these jobs are my dream job, but I have not visited them, so who knows. So far these are my choices. As a note, the more specific a job the less amount of applicants. In other words a job looking for anyone who does 1965 or above may get 100 to 200 applicants where a strict Civil War only job may get 30 to 50.

1. Missouri Southern State University, Joplin MO. They are looking for a historian who could teach several areas, but one of the areas is Civil War and Reconstruction. This is in the Ozark Mountains that we loved.

2. Brigham Young University, Provo Ut. Their preference is a Western Historian and they must be able to teach Utah history. Utah history is very close to Mormon history so I could learn it, Western history is a stretch, but possible. They would really have to like me to even consider me for the position.

3. University of Victoria, Victoria, BC. Any American field before 1920. Good school and not as many will apply because of location. The negative part is I am not sure about living in Canada. I lived there for two years, it is a nice, but what can I say, I like America.

4. Weber State University, Ogden UT. They are looking for some to teach either 19th or 20th Century. I should have a shot, but they will get a lot of applicants. One positive is it close to family and seems to be the kind of town I would enjoy.

5. Rutgers, Newark, NJ. 19th Century historian. Positives are a good school and good football team, negatives is Newark.

6. University of California-Riverside, Riverside CA. Looking for a 19th Century historian. Positives are good school and close to family. I would have two siblings within two hours, and Melissa’s grandma lives in Riverside. The negative is living in California. I am not crazy about CA, it is very expensive and crowded. My perfect job would be a college town.

7. Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT. Looking for a 19th Century historian. This is an excellent school, they will be looking for the best. I do not know enough about the area to make any judgments yet.

8.York College, York, PA. Civil War historian. The best part about this job is it is a Civil War job, meaning fewer applicants. So far the area sounds good. My cousin Lindsey’s husband is from there and they lived there for a while and loved it. It is close to Melissa’s Mom and close to my research.

Who knows about any of these, I may not get an interview to any of them or all of them. Not to mention my dream job may open up next week. I just thought I would post these because several people have been asking about where I am applying.

ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE AND THE LAST MAN ON EARTH

2008-08-21T09:23:00.003-05:00

I watched a couple of movies this week that I thought I would comment on. We watched Across the Universe and I Am Legend. I enjoyed one and wanted to like the other but found it difficult. The one I like was Across the Universe, even though it definitely had its weird parts. This was a musical, and if you read this blog you know I enjoy musicals, but this is musical like Mamma Mia where all the songs are from the Beatles. I do not know what I think about this new trend, it seems too easy. Of course people are going to like the music, the Beatles are one of the most popular bands ever, and except for just a couple I knew every song. It was like I knew the movie before I saw it, because I knew the songs. Where this does seem like a cop out (stealing already written music) it does take some work to make the music fit the story. Across the Universe is about the 60s, a decade I am glad I did not have to endure. They focused their attention on the counter culture of the 60s and mainly the Grenich Village section of New York. As I said I did not live in the 60s but have studied it some, and felt the movie did a great job capturing the essence of the 60s, and historically speaking gave some good detail of the events of the 60s. For example Lucy worked for SDS and eventually the splinter group the Weatherman. The movie demonstrated how the movement turned more radical and grew to the point where even radicals like Lucy turned from them when they became violent. It also showed how the leadership of the Weatherman killed themselves when building a bomb. The movie showed the turmoil of young men being drafted, and of course drugs, sex and rock and roll. Towards the end there were some psychedelic trips that were long, but I enjoyed the movie non-the less. If you like the Beatles you will just like hearing the songs, and if you are too young to be a Beatles fan, watch the movie and introduce yourself to one of the greatest bands ever. Also they used relatively unknown actors who could actually sing (something Mamma Mia should of considered). Be prepared if you have young ones watching, there is a quick nude scene. I do not understand how nudity can be in a PG-13 movie or why it is needed. Its funny how if it is art then it is allowed, but these are subjects for another post.

The other movie was I Am Legend. I expected to enjoy this movie, but the end was so unsatisfying that I was disappointed. I do not want to give anything away, but the conflict, resolution, and finish happen so fast. Most of the movie was about him surviving as the sole man left in NYC. Most of the movie was very intense and watching what he did and how he lived was interesting. Without talking about the ending, I wanted more, some more resolution. As soon as the conflict started, 10 minutes later the movie was finished. They seemed to want to make some statements about God, but then never played it out. If fact the filmmaker seemed to want to make several statements, but then never drew out the several themes. Will Smith did a great job as normal, and they had an interesting concept. It seems like the writer had

an interesting idea about the last man on earth, but did not what the plot would be. I would still rent the movie if you have not seen it, but be prepared to be let down by the ending.

Epic Journey, Part III- Idaho

2008-08-18T07:24:00.016-05:00

After spending 8 days in St. George we set out once more for the next leg of our journey. Our destination was Island Park, Idaho, the site of the third Finck Family Reunion. Our family goal is to get together every three years at the site of a different family member. This year was Angie’s turn and my grandparents have a place in Island Park, not far from where Angie lives. These reunions have been great, a great chance to see family and for our kids to get to know each other. The oldest boys have become friends and these reunions have been the major reason why.

The trip was not a straight shot for us; we drove only 4 hours the first day and spent the night at Melissa’s aunt’s house. Glen and Yolanda were excellent hosts and are always so much fun. Glen is so good with kids and kept ours laughing the entire time. The next morning we woke up and took the kids to visit Temple Square. It was hot in Salt Lake, but we enjoyed visiting the temple. It was very crowded, and we kept getting caught up in wedding parties. The best part of Temple Square was at the visitor center we were looking at pictures of Jesus’ life and Melissa asked Savannah what was happening in the picture. Savannah responded that, “Jesus wants to be a Sunbeam.” We also had the opportunity to meet my aunt Sandy for lunch a couple blocks away. We do not get to Utah very often, so it was nice to visit with so many family members. We left Temple Square and drove to the airport and picked up my Dad and then my Grandfather and then traveled the three hours up to Idaho Falls and spent the night at Angie’s house. The next day we were off to my grandparent’s house in Island Park.

This was another great reunion. All the kids got along very well, and as always we all had a lot of fun. When it was over we drove back to St. George, but stopped to look at the campus of Weber State who has a job opening this year. We spend a couple days in St. George and than back to my folks and than all the way back to Texas. It was a long few days driving, but well worth it. We drove a lot, and put a bunch of miles on the van, but look forward to the next reunion. Tami, you are on the clock.

Highlights from Island Park:

1. Getting together with the entire family together and watching the kids all play to well together. The three boys, Jake, Luke, and Colton are separate by three months and are good friends. Savannah and Bree were inseparable.

2. Spending time with my Grandpa Finck. He is a great man, and we were able to spend time talking. He is getting up there in age, and I am grateful to spent time with him.

3. Ridding the ATVs. My grandparents had three bikes and my brother brought up three and Erik had one, so we had plenty of bikes to go around and cover a lot of ground around the area. Island Park is not much of a town and there are bike trails everywhere.

4. Canoeing. I love canoeing; there is something very enjoyable about relaxing down a river. We canoed down the Snake River twice, both time were great fun

5. Seeing the wildlife. We saw 6 elk at various locations. Lots of birds on the Canoe trip. One day as we were heading home a buffalo was just walking through town like he owned the place

6. Sage’s baptism. One of the treats was being able to attend my niece’s baptism. Sage is the oldest of the grandkids and with all her family there and Hailey’s close they baptized her at West Yellowstone. This was a spiritual event. We had a big picnic afterwords with all of Hailey’s family.

7. West Yellowstone. We spent one afternoon walking around West Yellowstone. This is a small town, but has a lot of small shops that are fun to see. My problem is I love the clothes they sell there, but most of them are fleece and long sleeve, stuff that is not good for south Texas. I need to move.

8. Hiking. We went on a couple small hikes. One to Mesa falls, a beautiful waterfall. Another a nature hike with Robert explaining the plants along the way. I learned a bunch, but Jake did not seem to care.

9. The Rodeo. One afternoon we went to the rodeo, it was small but I enjoy rodeo’s and we had fun watching. The kids got board after a couple hours and I had to leave early.

10. Visited Rob’s ranch. My brother works for a multi--millionaire who owns ranches all over. One of them is in Island Park where they have a breath-taking piece of land. One part is the main house, but they also have an original cowboy camp with all the original buildings.

2008-08-15T10:06:00.008-05:00

Epic Journey, Part Two-Utah

After 11 days in Arizona we set off on an eight hour journey north to St. George Utah. Four thoughts and notable parts about the trip. First I hate Phoenix. I know everyone loves it, but it is hot and crowded and it takes hours to get through. There is no way I would ever want to live there. Second, why this no good road between Phoenix and Las Vegas? Third, I love driving through the Sorrel Cactus’s in northern AZ. Lastly, the most notable part of the journey was driving over the Hoover Dam. I have always wanted to see the Dam. Building the Dam is historically one of the great events in the past 100 years. One day I would love to spend some time there and take a tour of the camp towns created to shelter the men and help find work during the Great Depression.

Melissa’s Dad lives in Ivans Utah, a small community outside of St. George and that was our next stop. Her dad and step mom have three kids (the three M’s) who are 13, 12, 10 and they are idolized by our kids. St. George is a great place, but it was a bit hot, making it into the 100s almost every day, but it was not as stifling as it is here in south Texas

Utah Highlights:

1. Spending time with family. Our kids have so much fun playing with the three M’s. I think Jake and Savannah are still trying to catch up from exhaustion incurred by trying to keep up with the kids
2. Swimming in the pool. This really helps when living in St. George with the heat. The kids did really well. I think if Savannah had another week she would be swimming on her own, she really took to the water.

3. 24th of July. Ivans is the only community in the St. George Utah that still celebrates the 24th, which is the day the Mormon Pioneers entered Utah. Melissa’s parent were in charge of the float for their ward, so are kids got to ride along. Jake was so excited to be on a float it was all he talked about for days.

4. The Sand Dunes at Snow Canyon. We spent an evening playing at the sand dunes. Jackson spent most of the time trying to eat sand.

5.The Temple. We went with Bob and Cindy to the St. George Temple. We live over 4 hours from the Temple and so it is difficult to attend often. I enjoyed the time there and being with family, it is good to rejuvenate the spirit now and again.

6. Seeing Le Mis at Tuachan. If you have never been to St. George than you are missing one of the great venues for the arts. Tuachan is an outdoor theater with the red rock cliffs as the backdrop. Nothing will beat seeing Le Mis on Broadway, but Tuachan did an excellent job. Le Mis is in my opinion the greats Broadway play ever. The music can rival any play, but when added to the story and the message no other play can compete. At its core the play is about justice and mercy. If you have a chance to watch this play at Tuacon, I recommend it or any other show they have. They are beginning Big River in September, which is another one of my favorite. By the way the tickets are only $30. You cannot beat that price anywhere for that quality of a show.

7. Riding horses. Bob has two great horses and southern Utah has some excellent rides. My favorite ride was up Pine Valley. Pine Valley is close to St. George but when you enter the valley the temperature drops 20 degrees and you leave the desert for a wooded forest. I truly think Pine Valley is one of my favorite spots. Bob and I spend a day ridding trails in the woods. One a second ride we rode along the red cliffs. We could be very happy living in that area, there are so many places to hike or ride and they are all so scenic and accessible.

8. Bob is the police and fire chief of Ivans, so one afternoon we vistited and Jake got to play on the fire engines.

9. The County Fair. We spend one evening at the Washington County Fair. The kids went on plenty of rides and ate fried fair food (always a treat). The kids enjoyed the 4-H petting zoo are, Jake actually held a snake. Cindy’s brother Travis sings a band that played that evening so we brought blankets and chairs and spent the evening listening to him. Bob and the kids were playing Frisbee. When ever Bob through to Savannah and she missed it she would say “Grandpa you missed me again.”

10. We had a birthday party for Jackson’s first birthday. We had a big family dinner and had the traditional cake for Jackson to smash in his face.

Travel Log-Arizona

2008-08-13T11:42:00.007-05:00

1 Van
5 travelers
7 States
30 days
5000 miles

The Finck Family epic vacation of 2008 has finally come to an end. I did miss sleeping in my own bed, but we had quite a fun and exciting trip. It was nice to get away from home for awhile and forget about work and issues here in Texas. I followed through with my pledge and did not read or learn anything important. Our trip had three major legs, so I will comment on them separately.

Arizona:
Our first leg was the two-day drive to Sierra Vista, AZ where my parents live. It may seem weird to escape the Texas heat by going to AZ, but my parents live in the South in the mountains and it is much cooler there. In fact the first several days it was too cold to use the pool. They were having their monsoon season and all the rain really cooled things off.

Highlights:
-Spending quality time with my parents. It is rare to have one on one time with just my family and my parents. I love the rest of my family, but it was nice seeing them alone.
-Enjoying 80-degree weather
-Swimming in their pool, one of the reasons we went to AZ
-Had my girly week (wrote about earlier) of reading Twilight and seeing Mamma Mia. We never get to go to the movies, so this was a rare treat.
-We spent the night at my parent’s hotel in Bisbee, AZ. They own the Copper Queen, the oldest hotel in AZ and very historical. We ate three meals in a row at their restaurant and spent the day walking around the town. If you are ever in Southern AZ go to Bisbee and visit the Queen.
-I worked a few days in the kitchen at the Copper Queen. To many this may not seem like a vacation activity, but I grew up in a kitchen and jumping back in for a few days was actually fun.
-Celebrated my Grandma Ellis’s birthday. We had a party one evening with my family. Several members of my family had come to AZ for the weekend, some of whom I do not get to see very often like my Uncle and Aunt, Greg and Jenny, and my grandparents. But also Kathy and Kevin and my cousins Gina and Chris.
-Visiting Tombstone. You cannot go to South AZ being a historian and not visit Tombstone, sight of the famous Gunfight at the OK Corral. It is a bit corny, but we had an enjoyable time.
-When Savannah walked into my parents house on the first day she looked at my mom and said, “you are not my Grandma,” not a good first impression
-The day we left to go home, my dad and I went on a nice long horse ride. They live in a great area where within minutes we were back in a canyon where the landscape changes to trees and running rivers. Our horse ran out of gas after about an hour of climbing, my dad and I are not small men, but it was fun riding with my dad.

Travel Log

2008-07-21T08:56:00.000-05:00

My job has many good attributes, but one the greatest is that I get the summer off. This year we are making the epic trek out west. If you read my blog and wonder why I have not posted in some time, this is the reason. So far we made the two-day drive and have been staying at my parents house in Sierra Vista, AZ. It has been a pleasant stay, we get a chance to get out town and my parents have a pool, so we can lounge around. I have many historical and political issues that I want to get to, but I am on break and so have been trying my best not to think. I wanted to read a book that I could shut off my mind. My wife gave me Twilight, written by Stephanie Meyer. Twilight is a novel written for teenage girls, but my wife and sister have enjoyed reading the series. Meyer is LDS and has taken the literary world by storm, so I thought it fit what I wanted. It was an interesting read about a girl who falls in love with a vampire. I must admit I enjoyed reading it; it had interesting characters and intriguing story line. I even found myself gripped at the end as the heroes were struggling to deal with the conflict.

To complete my girly week we also saw Mamma Mia. I have already seen the play, which I thoroughly enjoyed. The movie and the play are very similar, a few parts have changed and different people sang different songs, but the movie does a good job following the original story line. I had one major problem as I watch the show. I do not understand casting non-singing actors in singing roles. Directors want big names to draw in money and every actor thinks they can sing, such as Nichole Kidman, Rene Zellwiegger, and the guy who played the phantom in Phantom of the Oprah. My problem is that these actors tend to fail in my opinion. I do not under stand using these actors when stages are full of good voices. Back to Mamma Mia, which may have put forth on of the worst performances with Merle Streep playing one of the leads. No one can question her acting, but she is not a singer. She did sound good when she sang with her back up singers (they should have made one of them the lead), but she struggled at the end with a couple of solos. Her performance reminded me of Marlon Brandow in Guys and Dolls, great actor but lousy singer. The men were not great either, but yet for them it seemed to work. I thought the casting of Sophia was perfect. She not only was very pretty, but sang amazingly. My guess is we will be seeing more of her in the future. Even with some bad singing, this was a very fun movie that I would recommend for everyone.

I will get back to some historical topics soon, but till then I hope everyone enjoys their summer.

Happy 4th of July

2008-07-04T09:30:00.002-05:00

In the early morning of July 4th 1776, after months of grueling work during a hot Pennsylvania summer a small group of the finest men in the British American colonies finally came to an agreement on the Declaration of Independence. It had taken some time for the colonists to even agree to independence, but while the congress was debating a five man committee was appointed to write a declaration just incase: Roger Sherman, Robert Livingston, Ben Franklin, John Adams, and the man that would write the document, Thomas Jefferson. What is most interesting about the timing of writing a declaration is that America was already at war. When the Congress met and began debating, colonists and the British had already exchanged fire, first at the battle of Concord and Lexington and then at Bunker Hill.

This declaration is one of the finest documents ever written and I believe even inspired. It not only changed the course of this nation's history, but of the world. It introduced the world to new concepts:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It would take over a hundred years and another war, but Jefferson introduced the concept that all men were created equal. America was founded on the principle that men would be judged by their own merit and not by who their father was; America would not have an aristocracy. This first line would change the course of human events more than any political document.

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This line went against centuries of government theory. Basing his argument on the writings of John Locke, Jefferson challenged that Kings received their power from God. Locke argued that man had lived in the state of nature, where the stronger ruled by sheer might. Men agreed to sacrifice some freedom in order to establish governments that could protect them. Government agreed that with their new power they would protect the people they now governed. In other words man and government made a contract, so government derived their power from the people who consented to it. Jefferson was saying that governments could not impose their will over people, but must instead answer to them.

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” This line was at the heart of why Jefferson wrote the Declaration. Even though we were already at war, we still needed to convince the American colonists that what we were proposing to do, revolution, was justifiable. The main body of the Declaration was Jefferson giving a list grievances of the British not so much for the British sake, but more for the benefit of the colonists. Jefferson had to show that Britain had broken the contract.

Where Jefferson broke from what most were writing, is that Jefferson focused his attack on the King. Up till then, most of colonial rage was focused on Parliament. If you read the Declaration of Independence, and I suggest today that you do, notice that when he lists the objections, he begins each line with he … referring to the king. Only Jefferson’s last grievance was not directed towards the King, but instead to the British people. He blamed them for not aiding the colonist’s cause and allowing the King to suspend their rights.

Interesting, one objection that Jefferson put in the Declaration was removed. Jefferson blamed the Kings for beginning slavery. Of course southern colonists objected to any idea of slavery being wrong and so refused to approve the Declaration with any mention of slavery, so it was stricken.

The passing of the Declaration meant absolutely nothing, unless the colonists could win their freedom. The fact that a bunch of farmers could defeat the greatest empire in the world is truly remarkable. I believe God had a hand in the victory. God needed a land where the gospel could thrive.

I am so happy that I live in the land of the free and the home of the brave. I know our nation has gotten a black eye as of late, but we still are the greatest nation in the world. For all our faults, we are still the freest nation and are still judged on our own merits. I hope today we can put aside our differences and all can celebrate what is great about his nation. And as Jefferson wrote, “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

A FEW QUICK THOUGHTS FROM THE WEEK

2008-07-03T14:40:00.001-05:00

1. I showed the original 1936 Mr. Deeds Goes to Town in class this week staring Gary Cooper and directed by Frank Capra. This movie is an example of my teaching techniques. I like showing movies because it gives my students a sense of what people were thinking at the time. This movie was made in the middle of the great depression and it shows how people were viewing the new deal. In the end of the movie, Deeds is on trial for wanting to give away his money, and he was being accused of being insane and ruining the economy and government foundations. If you get a chance to view the film, watch it through the eyes of the new deal and how people felt at the politics of the time.

2. Jake and I just finished the Time Machine by H. G. Wells. I know this is a Sci-fi classic but I was not too impressed. I have never understood the end, I understand he was trying to be mysterious, but I like when all the questions are answered at the end. Most movie adaptations have him returning to live with Weena at the end, but Wells mades no such hints in the book, in fact just the opposite. Also when you have a son who tends to get scared, reading a book about monsters that come out at night and eat people is not a wise choice in a bed time book. I had to constantly change the monsters into fun loving creatures who like to play games and act silly.

3. I do not understand the judges on Next Food Network Star. They ask contestants to simplify a dish that takes hours and days to make, but only give them 45 minutes. Then when the contestants give them a different version that is possible to make in the time, the judges complain that it is not the same as the original dish. What were the judges expecting. I thought all three dishes were very creative and generally had the same components as the original dish and was not that the idea. Outside of Bobby Flay you wonder if the saying holds, those that cannot do, judge.

2008-06-30T11:08:00.006-05:00

I have already posted 6-10, but here is 1-5.

5. Beauty and the Beast, 1991: Disney’s follow up to the Little Mermaid. This began cartoons as not just for kids. I took a date to see this. Beauty and the beast told a good tale, created fun characters, and sang some memorable songs. The best part of the movie was the antagonist, Gaston. He is one of my favorite villains. There are few Disney villains who can shoot like Gaston or go running around wearing boots like Gaston, not to mention every last inch of him is covered with hair. The one negative part was after the Beast turned into the prince, Bell should have run off with Gaston, the prince was a too feminine to be a leading man.

4. Shrek, 2001: I love this show. What is great about Mike Myers comedy in Shrek is that the entire family can enjoy watching, but enjoy it at different levels, in other words the kids and adults are laughing at different jokes suited to their age. I also liked the way it incorporated all the old classics into the story and then mocked them. Also John Lithgow is one of the funniest men alive. This show is the ultimate family movie.

3. Cars, 2006: This is probably the favorite of my oldest son and for good reason. I like this movie so well that I show a clip of it every year to my students. The main story is entertaining, but I like the side story of how the interstate highway system changed the landscape of America, and in this case the route 66. Cars is a nostalgic look at the glory days of America’s car culture when, as the movie said, people drove not to get where they were going, but to enjoy the drive. Cars has a great soundtrack (which we listen to constantly) and the scene where James Taylor is singing is one the most touching scenes in animated movies.

2. Jungle Book, 1967: At least one classic needs to make my top five, and the Jungle Book is by far my favorite. What makes the Jungle Book the best of the classics is the music. I believe next to the number one movie this has more great songs than any other. Songs like That’s What Friends Are For, Colonel Hathi’s March, I Wan’na Be Like You, and most importantly The Bare Necessities. If you have not watched this for a long time, try it again, I promise a swinging good time.

1. The Lion King, 1994: By far the greatest animated movie of them all. The Lion King has it all, an inspiring story, comedy, and amazing songs. The main message of the story comes from Rafiki the monkey when he asks Simba what seems to be a gospel question, do you know who you are? Once Simba understand who he is and his connection to those who came before him he is able to fight his evil uncle and win the day. Along the way there are very funny scenes coming from the comedy of Whoopi Goldberg and Cheech Marin as hyenas and from Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella as Timon and Pumbaa. Lastly it has the best soundtrack. This was a collaboration of Tim Rice and Elton John. The first time I saw this move I knew it was going to be great with the opening scene of Circle of Life, it is one of great opening scenes in any movie, not just animated. But there are so many other impressive songs, I Just Can’t Wait to be King, Be Prepared, Hakuna Matata (Jake and I do a great rendition of this), and Can You Feel the Love Tonight. This is a movie that I can watch again and again and I believe deserves its top spot

So here is my list as compared to the AFI’s list. As always what makes a list fun is the dialogue, so don’t be afraid to comment. What did I get right or wrong, and most importantly what did I leave out. I look forward to hearing from you.

A FEW QUICK THOUGHTS FROM THE WEEK

2008-06-27T08:45:00.001-05:00

1. This now begins the worst time of the year, the period between the end of the NBA playoffs and the start of football. I know baseball is on, but I am just not a big fan especially in the summer. Their season is all year long, I will start paying attention in October.

2. I showed the movie Shenandoah in class, what a great show. Jimmy Stewart is still one of the greatest actors of all time. If you have not seen this movie, do yourself a favor and watch it. Stewart’s prayer at the beginning of the film is classic and the greatest prayer in movie history. There are also two scenes that should be required viewing for every man getting married, where Stewart gives advice to his daughter’s suitor. First he asked does he like her, and in another scene he explains how women do not make sense and how to handle them. Both apply still today. Very funny movie but be prepared for tears.

3. An interesting summer tv show has been USA’s In Plain Sight. USA’s new original shows have become favorites of ours and In Plain Sight has continued this. It is about the US Marshals and the Federal Witness Protection agency. My favorite part so far is that it is not set in Miami, LA, NYC, but in Albuquerque. I like the mix up from all other shows and it makes Albuquerque look like an interesting place to live and nice scenery.

4. We had a fierce game of Candy Land this week for Family Home Evening. I did take the early lead, but Savannah mounted an amazing comeback. In the end I crushed my kids hopes and dreams by utilizing all my Candy Land skills to hang on and win.

5. Good Last Comic Standing, very funny. But I do not understand how the black guy in the sweater who made wierd sounds made the cut, to me he was the least funny.

6. If you have never watched My Boys on TBS, give it a try.

My Version of AFI's Top Animated Movies

2008-06-24T09:08:00.003-05:00

If you have read my blog for a while you know I enjoy lists, making them and watching shows about them, it give me something to argue about. Recently AFI came out with their top 10 movies in their top genres. I found their list interesting, but thought I would make my own. Many of the same movies appear on both lists, but I have changed orders and have added and dropped many as well. The first list they showed was Animation. My first three would not make the list if they were my favorite, but since I enjoy viewing and writing from a historical perspective, I will include them:

Animation
AFI list
10. Finding Nemo 9. Cinderella
8. Shrek 7. Beauty and the Beast
6. Toy Story 5. Fantasia
4. The Lion King 3. Bambi
2. Pinocchio 1. Snow White

For my own list, the biggest difference is the higher amount of modern cartoons. I love old movies and respect the classic Disney cartoons, but not only the technology has changed in recent years, but I also believe the story lines have improved as well, not to mention the music (which to me is important in a good cartoon).

10. The Simpson’s Movie, 2007: This was not a great movie, but since I have loved the Simpson’s for so long and they have given us so many pop icons and phrases there can not be a discussion about animation without the Simpson’s. So the Simpson’s Movie represents all that the series has given us in the past 20 years. Doh!
9. Steamboat Willie, 1928: I was shocked this did not make AFI’s cut. Again not the greatest cartoon, but it was Walt Disney’s first, and that alone should make the cut. Without Steam Boat Willie we would not have Mickey Mouse and all the iconic people, places, and memories that Mickey has given us, not to mention the rest of the movies on this list if we first did not have Willie .
8. Snow White, 1937: Outside of the dwarfs, there is not much about this movie I like, yet it is the first full length animated movie, and so it makes the list. I know this is a classic, but I do not care for the story, but most of all I can not stand Snow White’s voice, it makes my skin crawl when I hear her sing, but still deserves the number eight position.
7. Toy Story, 1995: Historically this is another first, which is the major reason for it making the list. Toy Story was the first full length computerized animated movie. But at the same time Toy Story told a good story, what do our toys do when we leave the room? For a while this was our kid’s favorite and so we watched it many times. One day while my wife was shopping, my daughter lost one of the little people she like to carry around. I think my wife actually felt sad, she said after watching Toy Story she felt bad for the lost toy.
6. The Little Mermaid, 1989: Not only is this a great story but I consider this a first, which again for me speaking historically is important. I see the Little Mermaid as the first of the modern cartoons. I look at all cartoons from Steam Boat Willie to Kung Fu Panda as either before or after the Little Mermaid. It was the first great modern cartoon epic. This movie also has a classic soundtrack with some of Disney’s most beloved songs including Under the Sea and Kiss the Girl (I already said songs are what make many of the movies in my opinion).

Look for the top five next week.

A FEW QUICK THOUGHTS FROM THE WEEK

2008-06-20T08:16:00.002-05:00

1. The best part of the summer TV lineup is Last Comic Standing, I cannot stop laughing.

2. Whoopie Goldberg should be banned from hosting. The bits with her in different plays should have been funny, yet with her I never laughed. And her line about Thurgood Marshall being the only black Supreme Court Judge, I assume was a cut towards Clarence Thomas not being black enough. I did not know all blacks were required to think alike

3. I find myself surprised that I am saying this, but I was glad In The Heights won, I thought it was the most exciting performance of the night. But now that it won a Tony, I will not be able to afford it even if I could find a ticket.

4.. I loved the Celtics comeback in game 4. What made it sweeter was that they did it against Kobe. I am sure he has plenty of excuses as to why they lost. What is he going to do with the refs having to call the game fairly?

5. Speaking of comebacks, Tigers back nine on Saturday was amazing to watch. Doing it crippled makes it Leg… wait for it, wait for it….endary.

6. All Rocco had to do to stop a playoff was hit the fairway on 18. It seemed like he was the only one not to birdie the hole that day.

7. If you ever get the chance watch John Ford’s 1939 Stage Coach, it was his first western and was the beginning of a great career of story telling.

8. I showed Glory to my class. It does not matter how many times I watch it, I still get choked up at the end when the 54 marches out to the beach and the white troops cheer them.

9. Congrats to the Celtics. I am tried of Boston winning everything, but it is great to see the Celtics win again. Growing up my dad was a huge Bird, Ainge, McHale fan so I rooted for them. I also think Russell is still the greatest of all times.

10.On SYTYCD they keep criticizing the white kids for not being gangsta enough when dancing hip-hop. What does that say about black culture? Maybe black youth should aspire to be productive members of society and not gangsters. To me it sounds like they are saying you are not black enough, as if tough and black are synonymous. I have not heard the judges criticize any of the black kids for not being white enough when dancing the waltz.

The Supreme Power

2008-06-18T12:13:00.003-05:00

A very disturbing trend has reached its height this week as the Supreme Court has decided to release the prisoners in Getmo. The reason I find this disturbing is not because of the actual decision (which I am totally against), but more because the Supreme Court has made it. Article II section 2 of the US Constitution says:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls:--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

No where in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the right to pass laws, but yet time and again that is what the Supreme Court is doing. Article I, section 1 of the Constitution says: All Legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives. In other words, just as every 5th grader learns, it is congresses job, and congress only to make the laws. Not even the President has the power to make a law, but yet the courts seem to think they can. And the problem is there is no check on their power. What ever the court says is final, there is no appeal.

Since the Supreme Court is assigned for life, they are not accountable to anyone. They can make any decision they want with no recourse. I understand why that is important, their opinions should be based on law and not the current popular political leans of the day. But the fact that 12 people alone can make such an important decision as releasing prisoners, does not seem correct. The founding fathers set up a government with checks on all three branches to guarantee no one branch became to strong, but the checks on the courts has fallen short. The only check on the judges is that the president appoints them and the congress approves them. Under this system, all radicals should be weeded out and only fair judges should be positioned. Under this system the theory has gone, if you want different kinds of judges (party allegiance) than elect a president from that party. Yet the man who made the decision to release the prisoners is Kennedy, who was appointed by Bush. Yet since he has taken office he seems more concerned about seeing himself on TV than doing his job. Kennedy is completely in love with his own mind, and wants everyone to bask in his glory.

The only option left for getting around a judges opinion is to make a Constitutional amendment. Once it is in the Constitution, then it cannot be declared Unconstitutional. This is the case with gay marriages. States have passed laws that will only allow marriage to be between a man and a woman. Yet courts have stepped in and changed the laws. Forget that the elected people from a state passed a law, a couple men and women sitting on a bench decided on their own to change the law. If states or the Federal Government pass an amendment, then the courts have no power. The problem is that the Constitution was set up to make new amendment very difficult to get. The Founder did not want to see major changes to their document every time a new party came to power. But the Founders could never have foreseen the power of the courts.

I always hate people who just complain, don’t complain give solutions. Yet the problem is I have no idea what the answer is. I do not believe the courts should cave to the will of the people, but at the same time the people’s will should not be ignored either. I do not believe this trend will stop soon. It makes this presidential election all that more important, it will be the next president who will appoint the next judges, even though with the case of Kennedy that does not mean anything anymore. There needs to be some check on the decisions of the courts, but what.

On last note about the gay marriage situation and the courts. The group that I am guessing is cheering the courts decision to allow gays to marry is the polygamists. If the government does not have the right to say marriage is between a man and a women, then why do they have the right to say that a man can not marry two women if they are of legal age and consent. It is a slippery slope the Supreme Court is playing with.

The Measure of a Man

2008-06-16T11:26:00.002-05:00

It is a day late for father’s day, but I did want to say something quickly about my dad. My dad has some real skills when it comes to working with his hands, something that I never learned from him. I am sure it was my own fault, I should have paid more attention. Sometimes it seems I struggle nailing two pieces of wood together. Though I did not learn these skills, what I did learn from my father is much more important. My father taught my brother and me the characteristics needed to be a real man and a good father. He taught us how to work (I know this makes people laugh, but when it comes time to work, I believe I know how and it shows in my career). He taught us that character is important, and that we should be men of honor and integrity. Our word is our word, and when we do a job, we should do it to the best of our ability. As a father, the best lesson I learned is to be there for your kids. The number of games my dad missed over the many years I played sports, I could probably count on one hand. He was always there and always encouraging. I try hard to follow his example. I heard a talk once where the speaker told of a story where a dying man requested just one thing on his tombstone. He asked, only if all his family agreed that it fit him, that the only thing to be written was, here lies a man. I always thought it an interesting story, and it sums up my dad perfectly. When you see my father, you can not help but think, here is a man. My goal in life is to become the kind of man he raised me to be. To be a good husband and father, and a righteous leader who follows the gospel and exercises his priesthood in the service of others. Thanks Dad.

Here is a picture of the Finck men, minus Jackson who was not born yet.

A FEW QUICK THOUGHTs FROM THE WEEK

2008-06-13T08:27:00.002-05:00

1. I believe everything Donaghy said about the NBA, not because I think Donaghy is trustworthy, but because he is only supporting what I have been seeing with my own eyes for years.

2. The fact Lisa had a chance at being Top Chef hurts the credibility of the show.

3. Why did SYTYCD have to cut out all the tappers from the top 20?

4. I do not think Obama’s new slogan “McCain is running for Bush’s third term” will hold water. It does not take a genius to see McCain and Bush are very different, only one is a conservative. Maybe he should give us a few clues about what he is going to do, before telling us who others are.

5. Horse racing will never regain its glory until horses race for more than one year. I enjoyed watching Big Brown, I would like to see him try again next year. There never would have been a movie about Seabiscuit if he only raced 4 times.

6. Watched Dan in Real Life. I liked it, but was waiting for someone to chastise the daughters for their selfness. Dan had sacrificed his own happiness for theirs and then finally found someone, and then he ended up apologizing to them. They were too caught up in their own petty problems to see their father hurting. And no, 15 years olds are not in love, and her immaturity at handling the situation shows she was not old enough to understand or comprehend love. Infatuations yes, love no.

7. I like how Burress from the NY Giants thinks. I have one more year on my contract here at the University of Texas, but I think my teaching last semester was exceptionally good, I think I will refuse to teach in the fall unless they give me more money. What would athletes do if they had to live in the real world?

8. It looks as if the reign of Roger Federer is over, he did not just lose but was beat down. Can he bounce back at Wimbledon?

9. Good luck to the Hickmans, they are moving this week and we all know how much stress that can be. See you sometime soon in VA.

10. Jake read 10 books this week by himself, I am very pleased with his progress. Together recently we have read Tom Sawyer, Huck Finn, and Call of the Wild, I love having a son.

How can something this patriotic become the subject of racism.

2008-06-10T12:33:00.002-05:00

I had a few topics I want to speak on today, but I am going to put them aside to comment on the new Hollywood feud between Spike Lee and Dirty Harry himself Clint Eastwood. I had heard a report on this earlier but today on the news I heard a comment from Lee that made my blood boil. I need to learn to wait a few days before I comment on happenings that make me angry, because I find blogging angry does not bring out my best side, but I am breathing deeply so will give it a shot. First the back story. Clint Eastwood has made two films lately about WWII, namely the battle at Iwo Jima. I have not yet seen Flags of our Fathers, but did watch letters from Iwo Jima and even blogged about it. As I said earlier, it was a good movie, yet to me told a different story than what I believe Eastwood wanted to tell. Anyway, Lee is currently making a movie about black troops in the war, a movie that should be told and I am glad Lee is telling their story. But instead of celebrating black troops, Lee is making them an issue. He criticized Eastwood for not having black troops in his films making it seem as if black troops did not exist. Eastwood taking offence to the comments fired back that Lee has not studied the history and that his (Eastwood's) films were historically accurate. In fact there were no black troops in the famous photo of the men raising the flag, and said that Lee should shut his face. Lee, being called out and with no historical argument to challenge Eastwood, took the low road and played the feared race card, his answer to Eastwood was he was not his father and they were not on a plantation and so he could not talk to him that way. It is this last comment that angered me.

First in case anyone is not aware lets clear up the historical argument. In WWII there were black troops who fought bravely and sacrificed their lives for this nation while at the same time having to fight off racial hatred towards them. They were fighting for a country that did not value them as equal and did not allow them the basic rights of citizens at home. As I said, I am excited about this movie and to have their story told. However in WWII blacks fought in segregated units, blacks only fought in black units just as Asians fought in Asian units and whites in all white units. In the navy, blacks took jobs like cooks (Cuba Gooding Jr. in Pearl Harbor). So when you watch a movie about WWII it is very possible that in some engagements when you only see whites, it is accurate, because blacks would not be fighting in those units. It just happens that not many black units fought at Iwo Jima, and in the film (as shown on the news today) there is a scene as they pan the men preparing to fight there was a black unit. As for raising the flag, no black troops took part in the raising.

What would Lee have us do, change history, lie about the events to give him a better story? I understand the desire to showcase the accomplishments of black Americans in evens like WWII where we put so much reverence on the men who fought, but that does not mean we should fabricate it. As for his comments about the plantation, to me this is racism at its worst. If Eastwood made a racist comment, it could be career ending, so why is Lee given a pass? Eastwood’s comments had no racial element and did not deserve Lee’s response. Racism will not end in this country until all men are free to make comments without the fear of being tagged a racist. This argument must go both ways, whites need to not make racist comments, but as long as blacks and whites are treated differently, then they will always be different. As long as whites fear making a legitimate negative comment towards blacks, they will be separated, segregated mentally if not physically. Eastwood did not make a racist comment, but Lee made it racist knowing it is an argument Eastwood will struggle to win, if he tried to win it at all, knowing if he loses the label of racist could haunt him forever.

Lee’s comment also demeans the true plight of slaves. Slaves were subject to beatings, rape, murder and all sorts of physical and mental anguish. Lee was told to shut up about something he was ignorant about. How do these two things have anything in common? For a man like Lee, who has studies slavery, to compare himself to a plantation slave is insulting to everyone’s intelligence and I would think insulting to other blacks. Lee is using something as cruel as slavery to build his own fame, and to make it worse, his example did not even apply.

Spike Lee is a good film maker and I commend him for his new project, but I also condemn him for keeping racism alive in this country. His film should showcase the accomplishment of black Americans in the war, something we can all have pride in as Americans, but now instead it will be controversial and separate Americans by race instead of uniting us. Maybe that what he wants, maybe when we stop being racist his movies will stop making money.

A Couple Quick Thoughts

2008-06-04T10:06:00.001-05:00

I just wanted to make two different comments about issues of the week. First the Democratic VP. Now that Obama has received the magic number to officially represent the Democrats, Hillary is going to need to back out. But the bigger news is the push to put her on the ticket as V.P. I feel for Obama. I look at it this way, the very fact that Hillary is being forced on Obama is the reason I am sure he does not want her on his ticket. She is not even the V. P. yet already she is bullying him around. Do you really want a V.P. who has the public attention, power, and arrogance to question every decision you make. Will he have to defer to her on foreign policy? She may end up as the V.P., but I guess that Obama will do everything to stop it.

Secondly I just want to post a link to another story. I am a huge sports fan, but not so much an athlete fan. It seems that most athletes are spoiled crybabies with a sense of entitlement because they run fast. Yet I know not all athletes are Kobe Bryant’s (biggest cry baby of them all), and Peter King from S. I. has written a story about athletes who help who do not always get the attention or credit. If you want to read his story it is the first page here.

The Ellis Boys

2008-06-02T11:17:00.005-05:00

I want to make a shout out to my cousins. This weekend my family went to San Antonio, Texas for my cousin Cameron’s graduation from Air Force Basic training. I was also excited about the trip because his brother, Jason, had just come home from his tour in Iraq as a Marine. Jason and I were very close growing up, but we do not get to see each other very often anymore. We had a fun time with the Ellis family exploring the River Walk and catching up. More importantly I just wanted to express my gratitude to my cousins and all others who have served this country. Both Cam and Jason are such fine young men, and I am proud of both of them for their willingness to risk their lives. San Antonio was full of men and women who are finishing boot, and everywhere you looked you could see them in their uniforms, it was very patriotic. I and my family are thankful to the Ellis’s for allowing us to join their family this weekend and take part in this occasion.

I also had the chance to talk to Jason for just a short time about his experiences in Iraq and about attitudes of the people there and our troops. I have written some about the war and my outside field of study for my Ph.D. is the modern middle east, but this was the first that I spoke to someone on the ground. I have not wanted to write much until I had. This was his impressions, and so do not represent what all soldiers and marines think, but it was interesting. I asked him who the troops wanted to win the election, and he said they did not care; they were going to do their job no matter who won. But when I asked him if the troops wanted to stay or pull out, he said they just want to go home. I asked if the people there wanted us to stay. He said the wealthy did, they had more stability now and better lives, but the average person was tired of us being there. They just want to run their own country and question if we will ever leave. I asked if things will ever get better and he seemed to have serious doubts. He explained how Sadam used the different tribes against each other. He would support and fund one powerful tribe in the area who keep all the others in their place. That was how Sadam kept power. Now with US presence, we have tried to stop this tribal system, but it is hard for people who have been fighting for so long to now get along and work together. He did see it as possible, but very difficult. I found his report very sobering, leaving me with doubts of any possibility of success. I am one who does not believe peace will ever be achieved in Israel, and so start to question if peace is possible in the Middle East. Turkey and Egypt have had a very successful democracy for years (Turkey much longer than Egypt) so it is possible, I just do not know if America can hold out long enough to find out.

This war had been hard on our troops. Jason had funny stories about Iraq, but then you could see a difference when he talked about having firefights and Marines dying. He lost a few men when they were close to coming home and that was hard on them. I can not imagine what it was like to him, I am just glad he made it home safely. I am still pleased with the way, we as a nation have celebrated our troops. I hope we continue to do so, whether or not we agree with the war, these are brave men and women and they deserve our best. I am a better man for having known my cousin Jason, he is a true friend (see blog on friends) and I hope it will not be as long until we see each other again. So Cam and Jason, thank you for what you do.

What Oprah might tell us about the election

2008-05-29T11:34:00.002-05:00

Oprah has been in the news a lot this week. The main story is how her ratings are dropping. Most of the newscasts have focused on how she has become so political by supporting Obama and how her followers do not want to hear her tell them about politics. First off I want to say do not count out Oprah, there is a reason she is the most powerful women in the world, she will bounce back. Her primetime show and her magazine may fail (primetime show already has) but her regular show is not going anywhere. I find it interesting that the news and talk radio is blaming all this on her political stance. Oprah has always been political. She has supported every liberal Democrat that has run for president since Clinton. There is no way that Oprah’s many followers have never known what party she supports or what ideas she supports. She has not stumped before, but her feelings have always been well known. No there is something different that has hurt her ratings. I believe it is something that I have addressed earlier in a blog about Oprah and her new emphasis on spirituality. Most of Oprah’s audience are white middle class Christians. But now Oprah is pushing these new age philosophies about spiritual matters. I can not speak for all her audience, but for my own wife, who is a big Oprah watcher, it is these shows that have turned her off lately. It is great that Oprah is searching for spirituality, but I believe it is this that is setting her back, not Obama.

However, after saying that if it is because of Obama, I believe the Democrats have something to fear. I have said many times lately that I believe some Democrats are worried that they have supported the wrong candidate and if Oprah’s ratings are because of Obama they have. As I said, Oprah has always supported the Democratic party, is it possible that the dislike of Obama is that much greater than the appeal of Oprah? You could argue that much of her middle class white audience are conservative and would not support any Democrat, but in the past her support for Clinton, Gore, and Kerry did not cause her to lose numbers. If women will stop watching Oprah because of Obama, how can he win? Women are a major asset to the Democratic party, maybe even their strongest contingency (the poor, college students, and minorities do not tend to vote in large numbers); they will struggle without them.

As I said, I do not believe Oprah is in real trouble. She is a pro and will figure it out. I think her new push on religion will fade, or the election will end. However Oprah is a touch stone for much of middle America women, and if her support is decreasing because of Obama, the Democrats need to take notice. Change is a good campaign, it has worked many times in the past. But once the initial excitement wares off, voters want to know what kind of change and what kind of man is expounding this change. As we are getting closer to the election, and voters are looking harder at Obama, some may not like what they see.

The Trouble with Hairspray

2008-05-27T08:10:00.003-05:00

I posted a blog recently about a historical movie that I believe was inspirational while also very historically accurate. However I also watched another historical movie recently which was neither. My wife mocks me about how serious I take watching movies, but I do believe good film makers are always trying to make more than just a movie. This movie was Hairspray. I understand that many will stop reading this blog now; after all I am talking about Hairspray, a cheesy musical that was not supposed to be taken seriously. Yet the main message of the film was about fighting racial and physical intolerance. This message was a positive one, and anyone who knows anything about the civil rights movement or the plight of blacks in America in the 50s and 60s will agree with the message of Hairspray. My problem with the movie was the way they seeming made light of the struggles black America endured during this time. 1960s Baltimore was a very segregated city. Though in Maryland, Baltimore was always a very southern city and as such had serious racial rules. The main character in the film Tracy (played by Nikki Blonsky) is an outcast who wants to perform on an afternoon dance show. Tracy and her friend Penny (played by Amanda Bynes) while in detention (where all the black kids seemingly hangout) befriend the school’s black students and learn to dance like them. This new friendship opens up Tracy’s eyes to racial discrimination, where black kids are only allowed to dance on her favorite show once a month. Tracy decides to take a stand and convinces the black kids that they should do something about it which results in a protest march where Tracy pushes a cop and has to hide out to avoid being arrested. During their conflicts Penny becomes attracted to one of the main black characters, Seaweed, and they begin a little romance. In the end of the film, the black students and the two girls crash the dance contest, out dance the white dancers, the bad girls are exposed, Tracy wins the boy, the little black girl wins the contest, and Penny and Seaweed kiss. What a happy ending.

This movie is listed a musical/comedy, and I think that is why I had issues. It is a very serious subject not shown in its true light. It is a liberal Hollywood’s version how things should have been, but not how they were. I will only touch on a few points. Is there anything wrong with a black boy kissing a white girl, no. But in 1962 Baltimore that black boy would have been killed. A black man-white women relationship was the number one taboo of racial discrimination. In what the move portrayed as sweet would have ended in the death of Seaweed, and I am not exaggerating this point. This is where white liberal guilt is selfish. The two white girls meant well, but they were pushing the black kids, based on their own standard of right, to do things that would put the black youth in harm, while only minimal hard to themselves (the white girl was in no physical danger while the black boy’s very life was at stake). Whites joining protest marches are one thing, whites instigating the march is something else. When Tracy pushed the police officer, she would have been arrested, while the black youth would have been beaten and killed, something that happened too frequently in protest marches. The same outcome would have happened when they crashed the dance show. I do not have a problem with the idea of this movie; they just needed to more historical perspective. The kiss at the end bothered me the most, because they did not show the consequences of those that did fight the system. I do not have a problem with musicals, in fact I like them, and other musicals have taken on racism without the cheesy factor (Showboat, South Pacific).

In history there were men and women who stood up to racial intolerance, but they did not win dance contests. Fannie Lou Hamer as part of CORE boarded a bus and rode it across the south to protest discrimination at bus terminals. When she and her fellow passengers reached Mississippi she was drug off the bus and beaten within an inch of her life. She was beaten so badly that her eye fell out never to be used again. She was jailed for several weeks, only given bread and water, beaten every day and raped with a pipe (excellent bio of Hamer called For Freedom’s Sake by Chana Lee). In real life kissing a white girl did not bring happiness. In 1955 a young 14 year old black boy from Chicago named Emmett Till was visiting family in Mississippi. He did not know the rules of segregation and on a dare winked (far from kissing) at a white woman. In the middle of the night he was taken from his home by the women’s husband and friends and never seen alive again. When they finally found Till’s body they could only identify his from a ring he wore, because he was beaten so badly. His testicals were cut off and shoved down his throat. This is the real story of the struggle for civil rights, and how relationships between blacks and whites were handled (a better movie dealing with this black white relationship is Grapes of Wrath). Hairspray would have been fine if Tracy wanted black kids to dance on the show, but the fact that she started the fight and hit the cop and Penny was kissing black kids, minimizes what actually happened and in a time where more and more kids are living in a land with less or no racial restrictions, they know little about those that lived before them, and what they know they know from movies, and I just hope young kids today do not think the civil rights movement was that easy.

A CON EVEN BETTER THAN THE STING

2008-05-22T14:29:00.000-05:00

As I have been listening to the radio and watching TV, a thought has came to me. I do not believe this is reality, but if for some very strange reason it is, it is the greatest political con in American History. Four months ago evil personified for the Republican party was Hillary Clinton. For most conservatives, we knew the Republicans chance of winning was slim, but just hoped someone other than Hillary would win for the Democrats. If you have read my blog over those months, I said early on that I never believed Hillary had a prayer of winning her party. Politically and historically she did not make any sense as a candidate. You never run someone that is already hated by so much of the population and is so polarizing. Yet what we have seen over these past few months is even scarier than a president Clinton, a president Obama. In the beginning Obama was just some slick speaker that seemed to bring new life to the Party, but now we are seeing a dangerous demigod, whose liberalism far surpasses our worst nightmares of Hillary. All of a sudden conservatives like myself are hoping that somehow Hillary will pull off the miracle and win her party. I still cannot believe I am saying that. I still do not like or trust her, but I do not believe she the kind of danger that an Obama will be. Just yesterday he said we consume too much fuel and food, and the rest of the world hates us for what we consume and so under his leadership he will cut us back. What if this is all a hoax? What if this is some kind of bait and switch? Our greatest enemy, Hillary Clinton, is now the good guy. Imagine if at the Democratic convention, they nominate Hillary like it was their plan all along. Would we not in some way be relieved? Would that not be amazing that she is not our worst fear. If it happened I believe she walks away with the presidency. She now comes across as confident, a fighter, and much more presidential then she would have if she ran away with the nomination from day one. Wit out Obama we would be spending all our energy killing her, instead of men like Rush telling Republicans to vote for her. I do not believe this is actually what is happening, I am not sure the Democrats are that smart to pull this off, but if they do they must be applauded for the most brilliant campaign of all time.

The Importance of Boxing in History

2008-05-19T13:45:00.000-05:00

I watched a movie over the weekend, it is a few years old now, but watching it made me remember how good of a movie it was. The movie is Cinderella Man staring Russell Crow and directed by Ron Howard. It is only a few years old, but when I bring it up in class I am amazed at how many students have not seen it. There are few movies that I think everyone should see, but this is one of them. It is a true story about a boxer named James J. Braddock, but the movie is not about boxing. The true story of Braddock is such an inspirational story, that I am surprised it has not been made years ago. Yes the movie has plenty of boxing, but it is about the Great Depression. There are many movies that show the hardships of the great depression, The Grapes of Wrath is great, but Cinderella Man beats them all. Most of us today have gone through hard times in our lives, but watching this movie puts in all in perspective. The struggles that families endured were heartbreaking. I love the scene of eating dinner where they each got a piece of fried bologna, and the little girl wanted more, so Braddock gave her his. When they ran out of milk (milk consumption dropped in NYC by over a million gallons daily) they added water. I love the images the movie portrayed; they can help any student feel their pain. The parts that tug at my emotions were when the oldest child stole food because he feared his parents may be forced to send him to live with relatives. Braddock looked him in the eye and promised he never would. When they did send them away, you know it broke his heart. The movie did a good job at several subplots, such as Braddock’s radical friend who wanted to fight the government, and how families were torn apart when husbands abandoned families when they lost all hope. I loved this movie because it showed real courage, not boxing, but fighting to stay together as a family in the worst economic depression in history.

I also liked the movie because it showed something I talk about in class. When I teach the 1920s I spend some time discussing the big five, the five most famous athletes of their era, and still some of the best of all times: Red Grange, football; Bill Tilden, Tennis; Bobby Jones, Golf; Jack Dempsey, boxing; and most important Babe Ruth, baseball. Sports were a bit different than today, the three most famous sports were baseball, boxing, and horseracing, and the most respected title in all of sports was the heavyweight champion of the world. Why I discuss the 1920s big five, is that these athletes, outside of Jones, were larger than life. They lived hard, and partied harder. They stared in movies and were bigger than the sports they played in. They were a product of their times, the roaring twenties, where life was about excess. Then came the stock market crash and everything changed. During the depression, the larger than life athlete was not as popular, but instead it was about the underdog. I use athletes and actors in class to try to show that depression effected every aspect of people’s lives and even who they cheered for. It was during this time that Braddock won the heavy weight championship. The movie did a great job showing how he meant more to Americans than just a champion, he brought them hope. Most Americans were desperate, and here was a man, a little older, a little worn down, had failed once, but was given a second chance and made good. Braddock represented them, I love the scene at the church (I will not give it away if you have not seen it), put people needed Braddock. It is in the depression that Sea Biscuit was also big and for the same reason. Not as good a movie, but worth watching. In the movie the owner said the horse was too small, the jockey too big, the trainer too old. Sea Biscuit had broke his leg and was on a comeback, and that’s the hero people wanted in the 1930s, not the big guys of the 1920s. The greatest 1930s athlete has yet to have a movie made, but should soon. Jessie Owens, a black man, walked into Nazi German and crushed the hopes of Hitler’s perfect race. He later said that he was not invited to shake hands with Hitler, but he was not invited to the White House either and still had to ride in service elevators in fancy hotels where he got awards. Talk about an underdog winning.

This is a great movie, and if you have not seen it, or have not seen it for some time, you should rent it. It is very historically accurate. I get emotional every time I watch it. If you are a parent, you cannot help getting a tear in your eye watching two patents struggle to keep a family together. It is a great love story and a story of courage and endurance. It reminds you others have dealt with worse and persevered. There is also some good boxing.

Republican V.P.

2008-05-16T08:28:00.001-05:00

I would like to say something about choosing the VP. There has been a lot of conversation lately about Condoleezza Rice being placed on the Republican ticket next to McCain. I do not believe this would be a wise decision. I first would like to state that I believe she is qualified, and would make an excellent VP, but she is just not a good choice for this year. One of the principles reasons Rice’s name is being suggested is that she might draw minority votes to the Republican party. I do not believe this is accurate. I am fairly certain Obama will make the Democratic nomination and with Obama as the Democratic candidate, no black voters will switch sides because of Rice. There will be some blacks who vote Republican, but they will vote Republican whether or not Rice is the VP. This is a separate issue, but unfortunately Rice, because of her success and connection to the Republicans, is not seen as black by much of the black community. Unfortunately there will also be some Democrats who vote Republican this year, because they will not want to vote for a black president, bringing in Rice will only deter those voters from voting at all. Lastly and most important, I do not think it is wise to bring in someone so closely associated with the Bush administration. I am not a Bush basher, but much of our country is, and Rice is not just part of the administration, but a leader of it. Basically, for as good and smart as Rice is, she offers many more negatives than positives.

McCain does need to sure up his conservative constituents, so his VP must be a strong conservative. He could go with either of the other two front runners, Romney or Huckabee. Romney has the economic expertise that McCain is lacking, but brings in the Mormon baggage. Not to mention the two seemed to hate each other during the campaign. Huckabee is a strong social conservative, but outside the South often looks preachy. He seemed to be a sure in until he keep his campaign going, to the annoyance of McCain. What is needed is a social conservative with a strong record with the economy, and not someone too connected with President Bush. Two strong names that could fit the bill are Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Gov. Rick Perry of Texas. Both are strong southern conservatives with good fiscal policies. DeMint does not have much experience but is charismatic and a good speaker, he may be just what an old GOP is looking for. He was partly responsible in killing McCain’s immigration bill, which may not help their relationship, but at the same time McCain may need help from someone like DeMint to get conservative support on immigration. Perry is also a strong conservative and has done well in Texas, especially in courting the Hispanic vote, something McCain has done well with so may not need help there. Perry brings executive experience to the table, something McCain is lacking. Either choice would make for a good strong candidate.

I know there are loud voices within the GOP to diversify, which is not a bad idea, but for this election, up against either the first black or first women, diversity will not favor the Party. Instead Republicans should focus on courting middle America and fall back on the issues that has given them primary control of the White house since 1968 (28 out of 40 years), a DeMint or Perry will help, where as Rice might deter.

John McCain and Teddy Roosevelt

2008-05-10T07:34:00.001-05:00

McCain was interviewed this week on the O’Reilly show and it was a telling interview. He is the best candidate in the race, which is not saying much, but O’Reilly took him to task on his issues. The two points on the first night of the interview that will disturb conservatives was his stance on immigration and energy. McCain has strengthened his stance on immigration since McCain Kennedy, but he has far to go. He also said he supports cutting the gas tax for the summer, which if you read this blog you know my feelings on that. He also said he will not drill for oil in Anwar, which I believe is a mistake. His reason for not drilling at the Pole was because he said he is an environmentalist. Do we really need to keep the poles pristine for all the people who live there? But what I really want to comment on was his statement that he is copying his hero Teddy Roosevelt who was also an environmentalist. O’Reilly reminded McCain that Hillary also cited TR as her political hero, to which McCain responded, yes but he was a Republican. As long as new politicians are going to through out names of old politicians as hero’s we need to understand something about my specialty, the history of politics.

Without going into the complete story of the history of political parties (a two semester class) to understand TR you need to know something about his political landscape. TR became President in 1901 after the death of Pres McKinley. TR’s presidency ushered in a political time known as the progressives. Up till then we had been living in the Gilded Age. During the Gilded Age, we did have Republicans and Democrats, but we would not recognize them with our current beliefs. My main goal in my class is to show how much the parties have changed over the past 100 years. During the Gilded Age the top plank for the Democratic platform was that they were the party of white supremacy. The Democratic party dominated the Southern state under this platform. They were also the party of small government, or the government that governs the least is the best. Because of this most of their power in the North came from immigrants who did not want the government telling them their business. The Republican party was the party of Union war veterans, northern blacks (blacks in the south did not vote), business men, and moral reformers who wanted big government to decided moral issues for the nation (anti-drinking laws). As you can see this is much different from today’s parties, where Democrats want big government and are the party of minorities and the Republicans want small government and dominate the southern states. When all that changed are subjects for other blogs, but the point here is when politicians look at presidents around 1900 and say yes but they are Republican, they may have the same name, but not the same party.

Now look at TR. He was the first Progressive president, meaning he was the first US president to actually think the government should be part of Americans lives. During the first 100 years of this nation, most people had few dealings with the federal government. The only things the Federal government did that affected the average person was give pensions to Union Civil War soldiers, pass tariffs to help the economy, sell cheap land out west, and occasionally send in the army to break up strikes, other than these they did nothing. When TR took over the White house, he launched the nation into a series of reforms and made the government the biggest it had ever been. Only two other presidents had made the office of the president as big as TR, Andrew Jackson and Lincoln, and neither of them went as far as TR. So for a Republican today, who wants small government, to say they want to be like TR does not make sense. As far as being an environmentalist, yes TR was one. He loved the outdoors and wanted to save some wilderness and created many of our national parks today. But what is not talked about was the land given to major companies to use their resources. He believed some land needed to be set aside for future use, not just to hike in, but eventually use their resources. I do not know, but I believe under our current energy crisis, TR would have no problem drilling in Anwar, the benefit to our nation would way out do any environmental impact.

There will always be certain historical figures that all politicians want to compare themselves too, Jefferson, Lincoln, TR, FDR, and JFK, but at times they might want to understand exactly what they stood for or what their parties stood for. Lincoln was the first Republican president, but he was liberal enough to make most Democrats happy today (he freed the slaves, you can not get more liberal than that). Ex speaker of the House, Trent Lott, would have been smart to have a historian read his speech before he said to the world that we would have had a better country if Strom Thurman had won in 1948. Thurman ran on the platform of white power and segregation, if Lot would have paid more attention in history he might have remained Speaker.

So my suggestion to all politicians is that before they speak about the past, they first need to understand the past. I believe understanding our political past is vital to understanding our political future. I would recommend everyone read about past presidents, they are not only entertaining, but can be informative about our future. Or move to South Texas and take my political parties class.

Clinton's Gas Problems

2008-05-08T11:34:00.001-05:00

I watched an interview with Clinton on the Today show with Meredith Vieira. I believe Clinton has come on strong lately and has made her party question their decision to support Obama, but this week with a very good interview of Vieira, Hillary cracked a bit. Hillary, for the first time, looked like she was losing and was grasping at anything she could to still try to somehow win over her party. Vieira was questioning Clinton about her proposal to fix gas prices. My opinion was that Hillary looked very weak. She has proposed a plan to cut the gas tax during the summer months, something that almost every economist disagrees with. When Vieira brought that fact to Hillary’s attention, she said she did not care what economists think, basically applying that she knows more. I believe this is a political trick that I hope America can see right through. First off, even if she is elected, it would not be until November and she would not take office until next year. So for now, she can say anything she wants about this summer, knowing she will never have to put her money where her mouth is. She can play to angry Americans who are paying too much on gas, but yet not have to act so she will not have to deal with the political fall out. This is like a high school election, when candidates are promising to have less homework and better food, yet know that if elected they have no power to do either. Hillary is making promises that she can not act on, but knows she will not have to. To me this is a sign of a desperate woman.

Why is cutting the gas tax bad? There are complicated arguments against this, and I am not an economist, but as I see it, our country makes a lot of money from the gas tax, needed money, and cutting the tax does not guarantee a drop in price, just a higher prophet to the gas companies who pay the tax. The idea for Hillary is if you drop the tax, the gas companies will drop their price. But why would they? Gas companies are private businesses who want to make as much money as possible. People are willing to pay $4.00 for gas, they will yell and complain, but they will pay. Why would the gas companies drop their prices just because taxes are dropped when they can continue to make money. The only way to drop prices is to decrease the demand or raise the supply. Either we stop driving our cars or drill in Alaska, but we do not seem willing to do either (Hillary, the one who claims to want to find a solution voted against drilling in Alaska). We need to make the market work, but we are not willing to inconvenience ourselves and shop around. If we boycotted the most expensive companies they would have to lower their prices, we need a price war. I do not see any solution coming soon, but until it does, gas will become the primary battlefield in the presidential election, and we will continue to see politicians making promises they can not keep

Cinco de Mayo

2008-05-05T11:39:00.002-05:00

Because today is Cinco de Mayo, I now that I live on the border of Mexico, I thought I would write a few things to clear up what the day is. Many around the country will drink Mexican beer and Tequila and make fools of themselves as a way of celebrating this holiday but they have no idea why they are celebrating. The inspiration for Cinco de Mayo comes from a battle fought on May 5, 1862 where the Mexicans beat the French army. It has nothing to do with Mexico’s Independence day as most believe, which is in September. A little background, in 1821 Mexico won its war of independence from Spain. Over the next several years Mexico was run by the first and second estate, meaning the elite white Mexicans (European decendents who never mixed with Indians) and the Catholic Church. By the 1850s there was a large liberal movement in Mexico which led to the 1857 reforms. The most important reform was the fall from political power of the Church, whose land was taken and redistributed. The Catholic church was not too happy about this new Mexico and so with the support of the French army led by an Austrian named Maximilian they invaded Mexico. The date here is important, if you know your American history, it is during the Civil War when America was too busy to care about Mexico being invaded by a European power and breaking the Monroe Doctrine. So on May 5, 1862 the French force arrived at Puebla only to be beaten by the Mexicans. This is the case of winning the battle and losing the war, because by the next year the French had captured Mexico and set up Maximilian as the Emperior of Mexico.

So why is this battle so important? Mexico was a divided nation. There was a strict class society in Mexico with the white elite, the regular Mexicans (mixing of Spanish and indians) and the indians. What the Battle of Puebla did was help create nationalism. They were able to defeat a powerful European nation, and brought a sense of pride to a struggling nation. With this new pride, they saw themselves not as different classes but as Mexicans. It is like they won their independence in 1821, but did not become Mexicans until 1862.

The holiday itself is interesting, because it is not celebrated in all of Mexico. It has become more of a popular holiday in America, like St. Patricks day, Mexians can show off their heritage, and it gives white Americans a chance to make tacos and drink alcohol. Drinks aside, it is a fun holiday and a chance to celebrate a different culture. Down here in south Texas it is a big deal, but suprisingly not as big as places with a smaller mexican population. Every day here is Mexican cultre day, where as in places where Mexicans are the minority they do more to hold on to their heritage. So I hope everyone has a happy Cinco de Mayo, and make some good Mexican food, and celebrate. And now you even know why.

Democratic Troubles

2008-05-02T10:35:00.001-05:00

I believe the Democrats are in real trouble. I watched two interviews in the last two days, one with Hillary on the Bill O’Reilly show and the other with Obama on the Today show with Meredith Vieira. From my perspective, I believe the Democrats have realized they have backed the wrong candidate. Obama will still win the Democratic nomination, and will continue to win votes in the democratic primary, but as Hillary has brought to her parties attention, Obama is slowly losing a grip on swing voters and independents. What I saw in the interviews was a confident Hillary and a nervous Obama, and Hillary was being interviewed by her political enemy while Obama was interviewed by a soft today show. The biggest thing Obama has had going for himself in the past months was his charisma and speaking ability. But now that he is on the defensive and trying to justify his own actions and statements, he seems nervous and fidgety. Vieira did not throw hard balls at the Obamas but she did try a few times to get Michele Obama to say what her personal feelings were on Reverend Wright. Michele looked very uncomfortable and would not answer the question, but instead kept saying we need to move past this. Of course the Obamas want to move past this, Rev. Wright is killing them. They have to walk a fine line in distancing themselves from Wright to appease a white audience who find Wright offensive, while not do anything to provoke their black audience that support him. Again in my simple opinion, Obama’s speaking charisma has waned and is not as effective as Americans have become sensitized to his personality.

In the beginning of the campaign, Hillary seemed to be the time bomb, the candidate who was so polarizing that she could never win a national election. Yet as more information surfaces about Obama, his own statements, and a brilliant campaign from the Clinton’s in the recent months (3 O’clock in the morning phone call), Obama has become the more polarizing figure. The biggest hot button issues for Obama right now is his relationship with Rev. Wright, his comments in San Francisco, and his wife’s comments. Obama has denounced Rev. Wright, but to many it was too little too late. He said Wright is not the same man he knew 20 years ago, but yet he has been attending his church for 20 years and only this week separated himself from his minister. I still think the more damming issue is his statement in San Fran, that the only reason middle America believes in God is that they are economically oppressed. Obama has said his comment was taken out of context, but I cannot think of any context where this statement would not be negative. In his interview on the Today Show, he defended the accusation of an elitist by pointing out his own humble background (See William Henry Harrison post). However his comment was not aimed towards urban poor, but small town poor, and I would add had a racist component. I am fearful of the direction Obama will take from here out. Also in the interview he blamed the recent attacks on him as a result of America being afraid of a black man winning, he has now used the race card. As his character and his own statements are coming under attack, he is seeing his best defense as they are doing this because I am black. In the long run this approach will not work on America. Americans need to be able to criticize their president (look at Pres Bush), and they need to feel they can criticize without being labeled a racist. The most interesting aspect of the particular race card is it is being directed towards his own party. Much of the criticism thrown towards him is from his own party, namely the Clinton campaign.

I would like to make one other comment about the Wright situation. Why would Wright want to hurt the Obama candidacy, because that is what he is doing. I believe the answer is two fold. One, it is simply about greed. Wright is a wealthy man, and this controversy has only made him more public and more important in certain circles. He cares more about himself and his standing then he does in helping Obama get elected. Second, and I will admit I have no factual bases for this other than my gut, but an Obama victory has the potential of being damaging to men like Wright, Jesse Jackson, and Farakon. All these men derive their power from the perception of a racist American and also a racist government. The discussion of race will have to change dramatically if we elect a black man. How can they fight against a racist government if the government is led by a black man. With no racism, they have no power. They either need Obama to lose and call the nation racist or if he wins, make him an uncle Tom, similar to what black leaders have done to Condi Rice.